[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive

IPPM Working Group                                             A. Akhter
Internet-Draft                                                 B. Claise
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: August 18, 2014                               February 14, 2014


                Passive Performance Metrics Sub-Registry
               draft-akhter-ippm-registry-passive-00.txt

Abstract

   This memo defines the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry of the
   Performance Metric Registry.  This sub-registry will contain Passive
   Performance Metrics, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the
   IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and possibly
   applicable to other IETF metrics.

   IPPM Passive metric registration is meant to allow wider adoption of
   common metrics in an inter-operable way.  There are challenges with
   metric interoperability and adoption (to name a few) due to flexible
   input parameters, confusion between many similar metrics, and varying
   output formats.

   This memo proposes a way to organize registry entries into columns
   that are well-defined, permitting consistent development of entries
   over time (a column may marked NA if it is not applicable for that
   metric).  The design is intended to foster development of registry
   entries based on existing reference RFCs, whilst each column serves
   as a check-list item to avoid omissions during the registration
   process.  Every entry in the registry, before IANA action, requires
   Expert review as defined by concurrent IETF work in progress
   "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-
   registry).

   The document contains example entries for the Passive Performance
   Metrics sub-registry: a registry entry for a passive metric based on
   octetTotalCount as defined in RFC5102 and a protocol specific passive
   metric based on RTP packets lost as defined in RFC3550.  The examples
   are for Informational purposes and do not create any entry in the
   IANA registry.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].





Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background and Motivation:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Passive Registry Categories and Columns . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Common Registry Indexes and Information . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.3.  Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.4.  Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.5.  Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.6.  Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.7.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.8.  Reference Specification(s)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.9.  Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7



Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


       4.1.10. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Comments and Remarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Example Passive Octet Count Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Example BLANK Registry Entry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Registry Indexes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.1.1.  Element Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.2.  Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.3.  Metric Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.4.  Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.5.  Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.6.  Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.7.  Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.8.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.1.9.  Reference Specification(s)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.2.1.  Reference Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.3.  Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.1.  Reference Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.2.  Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.3.  Measurement Timing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.4.  Output Type and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.5.  Metric Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.6.  Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Comments and Remarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has been specifying and continues to specify Performance
   Metrics.  While IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is the working group
   (WG) primarily focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the
   IETF, other working groups, have also specified Performance Metrics:

      The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework"
      [XRBLOCK] WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related
      to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
      which establishes a framework to allow new information to be
      conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
      in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
      [RFC3550].



Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


      The Benchmarking Methodology" [BMWG] WG proposed some Peformance
      Metrics as part of the benchmarking methodology.

      The IP Flow Information eXport WG (IPFIX) [IPFIX] Information
      elements related to performance metrics are currently proposed.

      The Performance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL) [PMOL], a
      concluded working group, defined some Peformance Metrics related
      to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].

   It is expected that more and more Performance Metrics will be defined
   in the future, not only IP based metrics, but also protocol-specific
   ones and application-specific ones.

   However, there is currently no Performance Metrics registry in IANA.
   "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-
   registry) defines a common registry for metrics.  The registry
   proposes the creation of two sub-registries, one for active metrics
   and another for passive measurements.

   This document defines the Passive Performance Measurements Sub-
   Registry of the Performance Metric Registry.  This sub-registry will
   contain passive performance metrics that meet the criteria set by the
   IETF and review of the Performance Metric Experts.  It is expected
   that the majority of the metrics will have been defined elsewhere
   within the IETF working groups such as IPPM, BMWG, IPFIX, etc.

   This sub-registry is part of the Performance Metric Registry
   [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] which specifies that all sub-
   registries must contain at least the following common fields: the
   identifier, the name, the status, the requester, the revision, the
   revision date, the description for each entry, and the reference
   specifications used as the foundation for the Registered Performance
   Metric (see [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]).  In addition to
   these common fields the passive metrics sub-registry has additional
   fields that provide the necessary background for interoperability and
   adoption.

2.  Background and Motivation:

   (from draft-mornuley-ippm-registry-active):

   One clear motivation for having such a registry is to allow a
   controller to request a measurement agent to perform a measurement
   using a specific metric (see [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]).  Such a
   request can be performed using any control protocol that refers to
   the value assigned to the specific metric in the registry.
   Similarly, the measurement agent can report the results of the



Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


   measurement and by referring to the metric value it can unequivocally
   identify the metric that the results correspond to.

   There are several side benefits of having a registry with well-chosen
   entries.  First, the registry could serve as an inventory of useful
   and used metrics that are normally supported by different
   implementations of measurement agents.  Second, the results of the
   metrics would be comparable even if they are performed by different
   implementations and in different networks, as the metric and method
   is unambiguously defined.

3.  Scope

   [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] defines the overall structure
   for a Performance Metric Registry and provides guidance for defining
   a sub registry.

   This document defines the Passive Performance Metrics Sub-registry;
   passive metrics are those where the measurements are based on user
   traffic.  Specifically, this traffic has not been generated for the
   purpose of measurement.

   A row in the registry corresponds to one Registered Performance
   Metric, with entries in the various columns specifying the metric.
   Section 4 defines the additional columns for a Registered Passive
   Performance Metric.

   As discussed in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], each entry
   (row) must be tightly defined; the definition must leave open only a
   few parameters that do not change the fundamental nature of the
   measurement (such as source and destination addresses), and so
   promotes comparable results across independent implementations.
   Also, each registered entry must be based on existing reference RFCs
   (or other standards) for performance metrics, and must be
   operationally useful and have significant industry interest.  This is
   ensured by expert review for every entry before IANA action.

4.  Passive Registry Categories and Columns

   This section defines the categories and columns of the registry.
   Below, categories are described at the 4.x heading level, and columns
   are at the 4.x.y heading level.  There are three categories, divided
   into common information (from [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]),
   metric definition and an open Comments section.







Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


4.1.  Common Registry Indexes and Information

   This category has multiple indexes to each registry entry.  It is
   defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]:

4.1.1.  Identifier

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry].  In order to have
   the document self contained, we could copy the definition from
   [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] here, but i guess we should do
   that once the definition in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] is
   stable.

4.1.2.  Name

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as
   above.

4.1.3.  Status

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as
   above.

4.1.4.  Requester

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as
   above.

4.1.5.  Revision

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as
   above.

4.1.6.  Revision Date

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as
   above.

4.1.7.  Description

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the
   above.

4.1.8.  Reference Specification(s)

   Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the
   above.




Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


4.1.9.  Metric Definition

   This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details
   related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and
   values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open
   in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance
   metric.

4.1.9.1.  Reference Definition

   This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
   defining the metric, as well as any supplemental information needed
   to ensure an unambiguous definition for implementations.

4.1.9.2.  Fixed Parameters

   Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in
   the Registry.  The measurement system uses these values.

   Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
   descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
   as Fixed Parameters.  For example, for RTP packet loss calculation
   relies on the validation of a packet as RTP which is a multi-packet
   validation controlled by MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550].
   Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL values can alter the loss report and this
   value could be set as a fixed parameter.

   A Parameter which is Fixed for one Registry entry may be designated
   as a Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry.

4.1.10.  Method of Measurement

   This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of
   the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an
   unambiguous method for implementations.

4.1.10.1.  Traffic Filter Criteria

   The filter specifies the constraints that the measurement method used
   is valid (or invalid) for.  This includes valid packet sampling
   ranges, width of allowed traffic matches (eg. all traffic on
   interface, UDP packets packets in a flow (eg. same TCP session).

   It is possible that the measurement method may not have a specific
   limitation.  However, this specific registry entry with it's
   combination of fixed parameters implies restrictions.  These
   restrictions would be listed in this field.




Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


4.1.10.2.  Measurement Timing

   Measurement timing defines the behavior of the measurement method
   with respect to timing.  Is the measurement continuous?  How long is
   the measurement interval?

4.1.10.3.  Output Type and Data Format

   For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a
   statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
   a single value.  If the complete set of measured singletons is
   output, this will be specified here.

   Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric
   definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.

   Each entry in the output type column contains the following
   information:

   o  Value: The name of the output type

   o  Data Format: provided to simplify the communication with
      collection systems and implementation of measurement devices.

   o  Reference: the specification where the output type is defined

   The output type defines the type of result that the metric produces.
   It can be the raw results or it can be some form of statistic.  The
   specification of the output type must define the format of the
   output.  In some systems, format specifications will simplify both
   measurement implementation and collection/storage tasks.  Note that
   if two different statistics are required from a single measurement
   (for example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new
   output type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw").

4.1.10.4.  Metric Units

   The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
   or units of measure.  This column provides the units.

   When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these
   terms) is collected, this entry will specify the units for each
   measured value.








Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


4.1.10.5.  Run-time Parameters and Data Format

   Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
   configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
   for the context to be complete.  However, the values of these
   parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters
   are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user
   (they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution).

   Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
   descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
   as Run-Time Parameters.

   The Data Format of each Run-time Parameter SHALL be specified in this
   column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement
   devices.

   Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
   point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and
   other information essential to the method of measurement.

4.2.  Comments and Remarks

   Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other
   categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen
   issues to be addressed by simply updating this Informational entry.

5.  Example Passive Octet Count Entry

   tbd

6.  Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count

   tbd

7.  Example BLANK Registry Entry

   This section is Informational. (?)

   This section gives an example registry entry for the <type of metric
   and specification reference> .

7.1.  Registry Indexes

   This category includes multiple indexes to the registry entries, the
   element ID and metric name.





Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


7.1.1.  Element Identifier

   An integer having enough digits to uniquely identify each entry in
   the Registry.

7.1.2.  Metric Name

   A metric naming convention is TBD.

7.1.3.  Metric Description

   A metric Description is TBD.

7.1.4.  Status

   Current

7.1.5.  Requester

   TBD

7.1.6.  Revision

   0

7.1.7.  Revision Date

   TBD

7.1.8.  Description

   TBD

7.1.9.  Reference Specification(s)

   Section YY, RFCXXXX

7.2.  Metric Definition

7.2.1.  Reference Definition

   < possible section reference>

7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters

   Fixed Parameters are input factors that must be determined and
   embedded in the measurement system for use when needed.  The values
   of these parameters is specified in the Registry.



Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


   <list fixed parameters>

7.3.  Method of Measurement

7.3.1.  Reference Method

   For <metric>.

   <section reference>

7.3.2.  Traffic Filter Criteria

   <list filter criteria limitations and allowances >

7.3.3.  Measurement Timing

   < list timing requirements and limitations >

7.3.4.  Output Type and Data Format

   The output type defines the type of result that the metric produces.

   o  Value:

   o  Data Format: (There may be some precedent to follow here, but
      otherwise use 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format, see section 6 of
      [RFC5905]).

   o  Reference: <section reference>

7.3.5.  Metric Units

   The measured results are expressed in <units>,

   <section reference>.

7.3.6.  Run-time Parameters and Data Format

   Run-time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
   configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
   for the context to be complete.

   <list of run-time parameters>

   <reference(s)>.






Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


7.4.  Comments and Remarks

   Additional (Informational) details for this entry

8.  Security Considerations

   This registry has no known implications on Internet Security.

9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create The Passive Performance Metric Sub-
   registry within the Performance Metric Registry defined in
   [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry].  The Sub-registry will contain
   the following categories and (bullet) columns, (as defined in section
   3 above):

   Common Registry Indexes and Info

   o  Identifier

   o  Name

   o  Status

   o  Requester

   o  Revision

   o  Revision Date

   o  Description

   o  Reference Specification(s)

   Metric Definition

   o  Reference Definition

   o  Fixed Parameters

   Method of Measurement

   o  Reference Method

   o  Stream Type and Parameters

   o  Output type and Data format




Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


   o  Metric Units

   o  Run-time Parameters

   Comments and Remarks

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank the prior work of Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo and
   Phil Eardley in "draft-mornuley-ippm-registry-active" which was used
   both as a template for this document and source of text.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

11.2.  Informative References

   [BMWG]     IETF, , "Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG) Working Group,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/charter/", .

   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
              Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
              measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap-
              framework-03 (work in progress), January 2014.

   [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]
              Bagnulo, M., Claise, B., Eardley, P., and A. Morton,
              "Registry for Performance Metrics", draft-manyfolks-ippm-
              metric-registry-00 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [IPFIX]    IETF, , "IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Working Group,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/charter/", .

   [PMOL]     IETF, , "IPerformance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL)
              Working Group,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pmol/charter/", .

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
              1998.






Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Passive Sub-Registry             February 2014


   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
              Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November
              2003.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC6035]  Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
              "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
              Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.

   [XRBLOCK]  IETF, , "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report
              Framework (XRBLOCK),
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/xrblock/charter/", .

Authors' Addresses

   Aamer Akhter
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   RTP, NC 27709
   USA

   Email: aakhter@cisco.com


   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a b1
   1831 Diegem
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2 704 5622
   Email: bclaise@cisco.com












Akhter & Claise          Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/