[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Network Working Group                                         M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft                                                      UC3M
Intended status: Best Current Practice                         B. Claise
Expires: April 20, 2016                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              P. Eardley
                                                                      BT
                                                               A. Morton
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                               A. Akhter
                                                              Consultant
                                                        October 18, 2015


                    Registry for Performance Metrics
                   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-05

Abstract

   This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry
   and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics.  This document
   also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric
   requesters and reviewers.

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 April 20, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . .   8
     4.3.  Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt  . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Definition of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Summary Category  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.1.  Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.2.  Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.3.  URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.4.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Metric Definition Category  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.2.1.  Reference Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Method of Measurement Category  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.1.  Reference Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.2.  Packet Generation Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.3.  Traffic Filter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.4.  Sampling Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.3.5.  Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.3.6.  Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.4.  Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.4.1.  Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.4.2.  Reference Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.4.3.  Metric Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.5.  Administrative information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.1.  Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.2.  Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.3.  Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.4.  Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.6.  Comments and Remarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics  . . . . . .  18
     8.1.  Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics
           Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


     8.2.  Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.3.  Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics  . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

   The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
   applications transported over its protocols.  Performance metrics are
   such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
   [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.

   The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in
   various working groups (WG), most notably:

      The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily
      focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF.

      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].

      The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
      Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
      technologies.

      The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an
      IANA process for new Information Elements.  Some Performance
      Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular
      basis.

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

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




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two
   related problems for the industry.  First, how to ensure that when
   one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way
   act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
   exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being
   referred to.  Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
   been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that
   is very similar, but not quite inter-operable.  The problems can be
   addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics.  The usual
   way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no
   Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA.

   This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a
   Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures
   and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo.
   Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other
   organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY
   use the format for its purposes.  The authors make no guarantee of
   the format's applicability to any possible set of Performance Metrics
   envisaged by other organizations.  In the rest of this document,
   unless we explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained
   Performance Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics
   Registry.

2.  Terminology

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

   Performance Metric:  A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
      of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted
      to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol.
      Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a
      complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP
      address, a database logging time, etc.  This definition is
      consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader
      than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390].

   Registered Performance Metric:  A Registered Performance Metric is a
      Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric
      Registry, administered by IANA.  Such a performance metric has met
      all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order
      to included in the registry.





Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   Performance Metrics Registry:  The IANA registry containing
      Registered Performance Metrics.

   Proprietary Registry:  A set of metrics that are registered in a
      proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.

   Performance Metrics Experts:  The Performance Metrics Experts is a
      group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to
      validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance
      Metrics Registry.  The Performance Metrics Experts work closely
      with IANA.

   Parameter:  An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
      of a Performance Metric.  A numerical or other specified factor
      forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions
      of its operation.  All Parameters must be known to measure using a
      metric and interpret the results.  There are two types of
      Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters.  For the Fixed
      Parameters, the value of the variable is specified in the
      Performance Metrics Registry entry and different Fixed Parameter
      values results in different Registered Performance Metrics.  For
      the Run-time Parameters, the value of the variable is defined when
      the metric measurement method is executed and a given Registered
      Performance Metric supports multiple values for the parameter.
      Although Run-time Parameters do not change the fundamental nature
      of the Performance Metric's definition, some have substantial
      influence on the network property being assessed and
      interpretation of the results.

         Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two
         Active Measurement Method cases.  The first case is packet loss
         as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a
         very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times
         when packets were lost.  Actual user streams likely see much
         higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors.
         The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where
         the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty
         stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that
         approximates a user stream.  These are both "loss metrics", but
         the difference in interpretation of the results is highly
         dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme
         where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment:
         delivered throughput.

   Active Measurement Method:  Methods of Measurement conducted on
      traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is
      generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics
      are known a priori.  A detailed definition of Active Measurement



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


      Method is provided in [I-D.ietf-ippm-active-passive].  Examples of
      Active Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One
      way delay metric defined in [RFC2679] and the one for round trip
      delay defined in [RFC2681].

   Passive Measurement Method:  Methods of Measurement conducted on
      network traffic, generated either from the end users or from
      network elements that would exist regardless whether the
      measurement was being conducted or not.  One characteristic of
      Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive information may be
      observed, and as a consequence, stored in the measurement system.
      A detailed definition of Passive Measurement Method is provided in
      [I-D.ietf-ippm-active-passive].

3.  Scope

   This document is meant mainly for two different audiences.  For those
   defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides
   specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which
   Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study,
   instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered
   Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation
   required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and
   including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it).
   For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel
   administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a
   set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered
   Performance Metrics should be evaluated.  In addition, this document
   may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance
   Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric
   registry defined in this document.

   This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics
   issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other
   form of Performance Metric.  This registry is designed to encompass
   Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for
   the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM,
   XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG.  This document analyzes an prior attempt to
   set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design
   was inadequate [RFC6248].  Finally, this document gives a set of
   guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
   Registered Performance Metrics.

   This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics
   Registry with initial entries.  It does provides a few examples that
   are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry
   at this point in time.




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
   Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].

4.  Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry

   In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance
   Metric Registry.

4.1.  Interoperability

   As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a
   namespace for its use within one or more protocols.  In the
   particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two
   types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the
   Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to
   the Index values):

   o  Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one
      entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a
      specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry.  One
      particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594].  Using the
      LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the
      LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a
      measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents.  In order to
      enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric
      Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent
      implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the
      reception of a control protocol message.  This requirement heavily
      constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the
      Performance Metric Registry.

   o  Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity
      to report measurement results to another entity.  By referencing
      to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to
      properly characterize the measurement result data being reported.
      Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is
      used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report
      measurement results to a Collector.

   It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for
   using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but
   also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined
   by other organizations or private ones.  However, others who are
   creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework
   are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document,
   because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement
   Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other
   Registries' entries.



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


4.2.  Single point of reference for Performance Metrics

   A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference
   for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the
   IETF.  As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define
   Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all
   them.  This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance
   Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly
   different (and incompatible) ways.  Having a registry would allow
   both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of
   relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where
   appropriate).  The single list is also an essential aspect of
   communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities
   that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the
   results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced
   Performance Metric.

4.3.  Side benefits

   There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry.
   First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory
   of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported
   by different implementations of measurement agents.  Second, the
   results of measurements using the Performance Metrics would be
   comparable even if they are performed by different implementations
   and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly
   defined.  BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by
   independent implementations are equivalent in the context of
   evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications.
   This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active)
   IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine
   whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well
   specified to result in comparable (or equivalent) results.
   Registered Performance Metrics which have undergone such testing
   SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test results.

5.  Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration

   It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Performance
   Metrics Registry with all combinations of Parameters of all
   Performance Metrics.  The Registered Performance Metrics should be:

   1.  interpretable by the user.

   2.  implementable by the software designer,

   3.  deployable by network operators,




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   4.  accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors,

   5.  Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry
       interest and/or has seen deployment,

   6.  Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the
       Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the
       measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation.

   In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered
   Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen
   deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered
   Performance Metric serves its intended purpose.

6.  Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt

   There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148
   [RFC4148].  However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
   it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM
   metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
   characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry
   having "very few users, if any".

   A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help
   understand the issues related to that registry.

   1.  "It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register
       every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and
       Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics
       Registry."

   2.  "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
       detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics."

   3.  "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users,
       no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148
       registry during the second half of 2010."

   The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each
   Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time)
   Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any.  The
   idea is that entries in the Performance Metrics Registry stem from
   different measurement methods which require input (Run-time)
   parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses
   (which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement).  The
   downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number
   of entries in the Performance Metrics Registry.  There is agreement
   that less is more in this context - it is better to have a reduced



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, some with
   with questionable usefulness.

6.1.  Why this Attempt Will Succeed

   As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the
   previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were
   too generic to be useful.  This document specifies stricter criteria
   for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a
   group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to
   assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified.

   Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is
   that in this case there is at least one clear user for the
   Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol.
   Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry
   values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric
   is properly defined.  In particular, since we expect that the LMAP
   control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement
   agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the
   Performance Metric Registry value in the protocol, a metric is
   properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is
   possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement
   agent.  This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry
   entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330])
   allows implementation to be ambiguous.

7.  Definition of the Performance Metric Registry

   In this section we define the columns of the Performance Metric
   Registry.  This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to
   Performance Metrics issued from Active Measurement, Passive
   Measurement, and any other form of Performance Metric.  Because of
   that, it may be the case that some of the columns defined are not
   applicable for a given type of metric.  If this is the case, the
   column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable).
   However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the
   following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester,
   Revision, Revision Date, Description.  In addition, it may be
   possible that, in the future, a new type of metric requires
   additional columns.  Should that be the case, it is possible to add
   new columns to the registry.  The specification defining the new
   column(s) must define how to populate the new column(s) for existing
   entries.

   The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined next.  The
   columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of the
   registry.  Categories are described at the 8.x heading level, and



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   columns are at the 8.x.y heading level.  The Figure below illustrates
   this organization.  An entry (row) therefore gives a complete
   description of a Registered Performance Metric.

   Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions
   during registration and expert review.

    Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
   Category
   ------------------
   Column |  Column |

   Summary
   -------------------------------
   Identifier  | Name | URIs | Description |

   Metric Definition
   -----------------------------------------
   Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters |

   Method of Measurement
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Reference | Packet     | Traffic | Sampling     | Run-time   | Role |
   Method    | Generation | Filter  | Distribution | Parameters |      |
                 | Stream     |
   Output
   -----------------------------
   | Type | Reference  | Units |
   |      | Definition |       |

   Administrative Information
   ----------------------------------
   Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |

   Comments and Remarks
   --------------------


7.1.  Summary Category

7.1.1.  Identifier

   A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric.  This
   identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry.

   The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit
   integer (range 0 to 65535).  When adding newly Registered Performance
   Metrics to the Performance Metric Registry, IANA should assign the



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   lowest available identifier to the next Registered Performance
   Metric.

7.1.2.  Name

   As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a
   potential implementor will use when determining whether it is
   suitable for a given application, it is important to be as precise
   and descriptive as possible.

   New names of Registered Performance Metrics:

   1.  "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance
       Metric and the context in which it will be used."

   2.  "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry."

   3.  "MUST use capital letters for the first letter of each component.
       All other letters MUST be lowercase, even for acronyms.
       Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture of
       lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'."

   4.  MUST use '_' between each component of the Registered Performance
       Metric name.

   5.  MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered
       Performance Metric.

   6.  MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered
       Performance Metric.

   7.  Other types of Performance Metric should define a proper prefix
       for identifying the type.

   8.  The remaining rules for naming are left for the Performance
       Metric Experts to determine as they gather experience, so this is
       an area of planned update by a future RFC

   An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_mean" for a active monitoring
   UDP latency metric using a Poisson stream of packets and producing
   the mean as output.

   Some examples of names of passive metrics might be: Pas_L3_L4_Octets
   (Layer 3 and 4 level accounting of bytes observed), Pas_DNS_RTT
   (Round Trip Time of in DNS query response of observed traffic), and
   Pas_L3_TCP_RTT (Passively observed round trip time in TCP handshake
   organized with L3 addresses)




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


7.1.3.  URI

   The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies
   the metric.  This URI is a URN [RFC2141].  The URI is automatically
   generated by prepending the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to
   the metric name.  The resulting URI is globally unique.

   The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986]
   and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is
   accessible through the Internet.  The URL points to a file containing
   the information of exactly one registry entry.  The separate files
   for different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when
   preparing new entries.  The exact composition of each metric URL will
   be determined by IANA, but there will be some overlap with the URN
   described above.

7.1.4.  Description

   A Registered Performance Metric description is a written
   representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry.
   It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help
   Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered
   Performance Metrics.

7.2.  Metric Definition Category

   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.

7.2.1.  Reference Definition

   This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant
   section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any
   supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition
   for implementations.  The reference needs to be an immutable
   document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to
   be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a
   specification.

7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters

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




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   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 active metrics, Fixed
   Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention
   "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport
   protocol, payload length, TTL, etc.  An example for passive metrics
   is for RTP packet loss calculation that 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

   In any case, Parameters MUST have well defined names.  For Human
   readers, the hanging indent style will work, and the names and
   definitions that do not appear in the Reference Method Specification
   should appear in this column

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

7.3.  Method of Measurement Category

   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.

7.3.1.  Reference Method

   This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
   describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
   information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
   implementations referring to the RFC text.

   Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
   actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation.

7.3.2.  Packet Generation Stream

   This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for
   a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not
   necessarily limited to Active metrics.  The generated traffic is
   referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics.

   Each entry for this column contains the following information:

   o  Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   o  Reference: the specification where the stream is defined

   The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the
   average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams
   with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times.  In case such
   parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
   parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
   wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.

   The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling
   (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted.
   Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet
   (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to
   request a webpage).  Other streams support a series of atomic
   measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing
   between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement.
   Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson
   distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in
   [RFC3432].  Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique
   parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values
   should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the
   Run-time parameter column.

7.3.3.  Traffic Filter

   This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets
   flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is
   not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent.  This includes
   but is not limited to Passive Metrics.  The filter specifies the
   traffic that is measured.  This includes protocol field values/
   ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers.

   The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a
   balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy.
   Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley
   Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which
   reuses IPFIX [RFC7012].  An example BPF string for matching TCP/80
   traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net
   192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80".  More complex filter engines might
   be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching
   using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.

   The traffic filter includes the following information:

      Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g.  BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow
      rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference

      Value: the actual set of rules expressed



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


7.3.4.  Sampling Distribution

   The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match
   the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the
   measurement.  One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets
   matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other
   sampling strategies.  It includes the following information:

      Value: the name of the sampling distribution

      Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the
      sampling distribution is properly defined.

   The sampling distribution may require parameters.  In case such
   parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
   parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
   wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.

   Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are
   documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the
   Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more
   background information.  The sampling distribution parameters might
   be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling
   Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014].

7.3.5.  Run-time Parameters

   Run-Time Parameters are Parameters 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 Performance Metrics Registry (like
   the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid
   to the measurement system implementer 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.

   Parameters MUST have well defined names.  For Human readers, the
   hanging indent style will work, and the names and definitions that do
   not appear in the Reference Method Specification should appear in
   this column.

   A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this
   column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement
   devices.  For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be
   encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip-



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   address as defined in [RFC6991].  The actual encoding(s) used must be
   explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter.

   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.

7.3.6.  Role

   In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined
   e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one
   measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that
   receives the packets.  This column contains the name of the role for
   this particular entry.  In the previous example, there should be two
   entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a
   measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source
   metric know that it is supposed to generate packets.  The values for
   this field are defined in the reference method of measurement.

7.4.  Output Category

   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.

7.4.1.  Type

   This column contain the name of the output type.  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").

7.4.2.  Reference Definition

   This column contains a pointer to the specification where the output
   type is defined






Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


7.4.3.  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.

7.5.  Administrative information

7.5.1.  Status

   The status of the specification of this Registered Performance
   Metric.  Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'.  All newly
   defined Information Elements have 'current' status.

7.5.2.  Requester

   The requester for the Registered Performance Metric.  The requester
   MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person.

7.5.3.  Revision

   The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0
   for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and
   incremented by one for each revision.

7.5.4.  Revision Date

   The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered
   Performance Metric.

7.6.  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.

8.  The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics

   Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been
   identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics
   Registry entry specifications in accordance with Section 7 are
   submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the Performance
   Metric Experts, as defined below.  This process is also used for
   other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation
   or revision, as described later in this section.



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance
   Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working
   group, or offer the opportunity for review on the WG mailing list.

8.1.  Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry

   Requests to change Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance
   Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to
   a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed
   by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
   RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry.  The
   Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
   compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
   Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
   defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.

   Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
   this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.

   The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred
   reviews in a timely manner.  If the request is acceptable, the
   Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which
   updates the Performance Metric Registry.  If the request is not
   acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the
   requester to change the request to be compliant.  The Performance
   Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject
   clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.

   This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
   Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus.  Specifically,
   any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF
   consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.

   Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in
   Section 7 of RFC5226.

8.2.  Revising Registered Performance Metrics

   A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain
   backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance
   Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric
   (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and
   Name).

   The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is
   to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is
   'current' or 'deprecated'.




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance
   Metric entries or addressing errors therein.  To be certain, changes
   and deprecations within the Performance Metric Registry are not
   encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent possible.  However,
   in recognition that change is inevitable, the provisions of this
   section address the need for revisions.

   Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance
   Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing
   Performance Metrics Registry entry.

   The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing
   changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of
   interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to
   maintain interoperability above all else.  Changes to Registered
   Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way;
   necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow
   interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the
   creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the
   deprecation of the earlier metric.

   A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward-
   compatible only when:

   1.  "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only
       editorial; or"

   2.  "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's
       definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent
       the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined;
       or"

   3.  "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
       changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
       semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
       value); or"

   4.  "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
       corrected."

   If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the
   Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document,
   IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry.  The
   requester of the change is appended to the requester in the
   Performance Metrics Registry.

   Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics
   Registry has a revision number, starting at zero.  Each change to a



Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the
   revision number by one.

   When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
   Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most
   recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the
   registry for that Registered Performance Metric.

   Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the
   form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such
   additions may not constitute a revision according to this process.

   Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the
   registry for archival purposes.  The older entries are kept with all
   fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status
   field that is changed to "Deprecated".

8.3.  Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics

   Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
   Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation.  A
   Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when:

   1.  "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
       shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in
       Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or"

   2.  "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was
       itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation
       method; or"

   A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the
   Performance Metric Expert for review.  When deprecating an
   Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the
   Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the
   deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics
   created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric.

   The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented
   upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any
   revision.

   The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in
   a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application.

   Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics must
   not be reused.




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except
   the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to
   "Deprecated").

9.  Security considerations

   This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the
   Internet.  However, the definition of Performance Metrics may
   introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with
   security in mind.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
   Registry setup.  IANA is requested to create a new registry for
   Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics" with the
   columns defined in Section 7.

   New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered
   by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a
   group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, appointed by the
   IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.  The
   experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs and
   document editors of the Performance Metrics Directorate among other
   sources of experts.

   The Identifier values from 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private
   use.  The name starting with the prefix Priv- are reserved for
   private use.

   This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
   urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric for the purpose of generating URIs for
   Registered Performance Metrics.

11.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading
   some brainstorming sessions on this topic.  Thanks to Barbara Stark
   and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2141]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141,
              May 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2141>.

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
              Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August
              2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6248]  Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
              Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.

   [RFC6576]  Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
              "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
              Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
              September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.




Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   [RFC2681]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
              September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.

   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
              performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
              "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
              RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC5474]  Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
              Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet
              Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474,
              March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5474>.

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.

   [RFC5477]  Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
              Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
              RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5477>.

   [RFC5481]  Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
              Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
              March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.





Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC6035]  Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
              "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
              Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035,
              November 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6035>.

   [RFC6776]  Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
              Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
              RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6776>.

   [RFC6792]  Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use
              of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6792>.

   [RFC7003]  Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control
              Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap
              Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003,
              September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7003>.

   [RFC7012]  Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
              for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.

   [RFC7014]  D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
              Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
              September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.

   [RFC7594]  Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
              Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-active-passive]
              Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and
              everything in-between, or Hybrid)", draft-ietf-ippm-
              active-passive-01 (work in progress), September 2015.






Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
              RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

Authors' Addresses

   Marcelo Bagnulo
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   SPAIN

   Phone: 34 91 6249500
   Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es


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

   Email: bclaise@cisco.com


   Philip Eardley
   BT
   Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich
   ENGLAND

   Email: philip.eardley@bt.com


   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown, NJ
   USA

   Email: acmorton@att.com









Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Registry for Performance Metrics        October 2015


   Aamer Akhter
   Consultant
   118 Timber Hitch
   Cary, NC
   USA

   Email: aakhter@gmail.com












































Bagnulo, et al.          Expires April 20, 2016                [Page 27]


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