Skip to main content

Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)
RFC 7799

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-05-23
06 (System) RFC published
2016-05-16
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7799">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2016-03-10
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7799">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2016-03-07
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-01-27
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-01-27
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-01-27
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-01-26
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-01-26
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-01-26
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-01-26
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-01-26
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-01-26
06 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-01-26
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2016-01-23
06 Al Morton IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-01-23
06 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06.txt
2016-01-21
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carl Wallace.
2016-01-21
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-01-21
05 Spencer Dawkins Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-01-21
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-01-21
05 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

4.3: would it be worth noting (here or elsewhere) that
this seems to be a hard thing to do with non-e2e ciphertext,
e.g. …
[Ballot comment]

4.3: would it be worth noting (here or elsewhere) that
this seems to be a hard thing to do with non-e2e ciphertext,
e.g. part way along a VPN path
2016-01-21
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-01-21
05 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
Jouni Korhonen performed the opsdir review

Summary: Ready with issues

Major:    None.

Minor:

* The IDnits gives a comment but the outdated …
[Ballot comment]
Jouni Korhonen performed the opsdir review

Summary: Ready with issues

Major:    None.

Minor:

* The IDnits gives a comment but the outdated reference can be corrected at any time seen appropriate.

* Line 412:  expand DSCP on the first use.

* Lines 413-414: there is no closing ")".

* Lines 491-494: I find a discussion about IPR converage in this I-D somewhat odd. Specifically because there are no hard facts i.e., "..may be covered.." Maybe it is just me and if the WG has agree to have such text there I have no problem with it.


- Jouni
2016-01-21
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-01-20
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2016-01-20
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-01-20
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-01-20
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-01-20
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Nice document, thanks.
2016-01-20
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-01-19
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot comment]
Just a nit..  Section 3. (Terms and Definitions) says that the “definitions are consistent with [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive].”  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
2016-01-19
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-01-19
05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2016-01-19
05 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2016-01-18
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this! Its a very useful reference. Especially the discussion/examples section.
2016-01-18
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-01-16
05 Brian Carpenter Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter.
2016-01-14
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2016-01-14
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2016-01-12
05 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-01-06
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-01-06
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot comment]
I had the explain the differences and pros/cons of active/passive so many times...
Now I can simply refer to this document. Thanks Al.
2016-01-06
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-01-04
05 Spencer Dawkins Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-01-21
2016-01-04
05 Spencer Dawkins Ballot has been issued
2016-01-04
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-01-04
05 Spencer Dawkins Created "Approve" ballot
2016-01-04
05 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was changed
2015-12-24
05 Al Morton IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-12-24
05 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05.txt
2015-12-24
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-12-21
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-12-21
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2015-12-17
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2015-12-17
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2015-12-16
04 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter.
2015-12-15
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2015-12-15
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2015-12-14
04 Jouni Korhonen Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen.
2015-12-12
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2015-12-12
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2015-12-10
04 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-12-10
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@trammell.ch, "Brian Trammell" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt> (Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or Hybrid)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or
  Hybrid)'
  <draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive
  performance assessment.  The construction of Metrics and Methods can
  be described as Active or Passive.  Some methods may use a subset of
  both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid
  Methods.  This memo also describes multiple dimensions to help
  evaluate new methods as they emerge.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-12-10
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot approval text was generated
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was generated
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-12-10
04 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-12-10
04 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational; indicated in page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive
  performance assessment.  The construction of Metrics and Methods can
  be described as Active or Passive.  Some methods may use a subset of
  both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid
  Methods.

Working Group Summary

  The document was extensively discussed in the working group, and was
  written in direct response to confusion about the terms it defines in
  other discussions within the WG. It has been well reviewed and there
  exists no controversy about it.

Document Quality

  The document is of high quality, succinctly defining the terms it sets out
  to, explaining them with useful examples

Personnel

  Brian Trammell is the document shepherd.
  Spencer Dawkins is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The shepherd read the document in full.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No substantial concerns. The document does make reference to expired (and
definitively dead) individual drafts as well as current individual drafts
which may never be adopted by the working group, leading to some of the
examples potentially becoming outdated. These were included to further explain
the separation between active and passive metrics

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

None.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Consensus is strong.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

One nit, caused by a space in a bracketed reference to an RFC in a diagram not
meant to be a reference.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None necessary

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document has no IANA consideration.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell This document now replaces draft-morton-ippm-active-passive instead of None
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell Changed document writeup
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell Changed document writeup
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2015-12-08
03 Brian Trammell IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-11-10
03 Brian Trammell Notification list changed to "Brian Trammell" <ietf@trammell.ch>
2015-11-10
03 Brian Trammell Document shepherd changed to Brian Trammell
2015-11-01
03 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-03.txt
2015-10-19
02 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-02.txt
2015-10-18
01 Brian Trammell Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2015-10-07
01 Brian Trammell IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-09-06
01 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-01.txt
2015-06-30
00 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-00.txt