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 |