draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-00.txt		draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01.txt
	Network Working Group A. Morton		Network Working Group A. Morton
	Internet-Draft AT&T Labs		Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
	Intended status: Standards Track June 30, 2010		Intended status: Standards Track July 1, 2010
	Expires: January 1, 2011		Expires: January 2, 2011
	RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete		RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete
	draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-00		draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)		This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
	Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics		Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics
	Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry		Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry
	structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely		structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely
	identify IPPM metrics.		identify IPPM metrics.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	skipping to change at page 1, line 40		skipping to change at page 1, line 40
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2011.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 17		skipping to change at page 2, line 17
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the		2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the
	corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes		The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes
	several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in		several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in
	order to account for sources of measurement variability. For		order to account for sources of measurement variability. For
	example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so		example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so
	that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as		that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as
	payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to		payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to
	disambiguate the results.		disambiguate the results.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 28		skipping to change at page 3, line 28
	appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only		appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only
	indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679],		indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679],
	[RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods		[RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods
	for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability		for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability
	possible when characterizing a metric exactly.		possible when characterizing a metric exactly.
	It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every		It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every
	possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream		possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream
	parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metric Registry.		parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metric Registry.
			The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few, if any users.
			Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was
			syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
			The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
			"::=". It took eight months before someone complained that a parser
			found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
			current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
			effectively create a new registry
			[draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00, work in progress].
	2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding		2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding
	IANA registry		IANA registry
	Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and		Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and
	the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry		the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry
	in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that:		in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that:
	o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic		o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic
	o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry		o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry
	It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement		It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement
	registry function will work to specify such a registry.		registry function will work to specify such a registry.
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the		This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the
	security of the Internet.		security of the Internet (especially if there is a a zombie
			apocalypse on the day it is published).
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM		Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM
	METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry		METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry
	[RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been		[RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been
	identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there		identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there
	is consensus to do so.		is consensus to do so.
	The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as		The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as
	originally described in [RFC4148].		originally described in [RFC4148].
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Acknowledgements
			Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation
			in this memo.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,		[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
	"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,		"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
	May 1998.		May 1998.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 42		skipping to change at page 5, line 9
	Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,		Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network		[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
	performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,		performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics		[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
	Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.		Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
			[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
			Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
			October 2009.
	6.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[Stats] "None", .		[....] "None", .
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Al Morton		Al Morton
	AT&T Labs		AT&T Labs
	200 Laurel Avenue South		200 Laurel Avenue South
	Middletown,, NJ 07748		Middletown,, NJ 07748
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1 732 420 1571		Phone: +1 732 420 1571
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		28 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/