Network Working Group                                          A. Morton
Internet-Draft                                                 AT&T Labs
Obsoletes: 4148 (if approved)                           January 10, 2011
Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 25, 2010 Informational
Expires: April 28, July 14, 2011

          RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete


   This memo recommends that reclassifies RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
   Registry be reclassified as Historic, Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry
   itself be withdrawn from use. use because it is obsolete.  The current registry
   structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely
   identify IPPM metrics.  Despite apparent efforts to find current or
   even future users, no one has responded to the third quarter of 2010 call for interest in
   the RFC 4148 registry.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. registry during the second half of 2010.

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

   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 28, July 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 2011 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
   ( 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.  Recommendation  Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding IANA
       registry as Obsolete  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . 4
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6

1.  Introduction

   The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes
   several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in
   order to account for sources of measurement variability.  For
   example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so
   that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as
   payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to
   disambiguate the results.

   When the IPPM Metric Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the variability
   of the Type P notion, and the variability possible with the many
   metric parameters (see Section 4.1 of [RFC2679] ) was not fully
   appreciated.  Further, some of the early metric definitions only
   indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679],
   [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods
   for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability
   possible when characterizing a metric exactly.

   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 Metric Registry.

   The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few, few users, if any users. any.
   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 offered 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]. registry.

   Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one
   has responded to the third quarter second half of 2010 call for interest in the RFC
   4148 registry.  Therefore, the IETF could now declare declares the registry Historic
   Obsolete without any further reservations.

   When a registry is declared Historic, designated Obsolete, it simply prevents IANA from
   registering new objects, in this case new metrics.  So, even if a
   registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the
   current registry and its contents will continue to be available.

   The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry
   is [RFC6049].  This memo updates all previous memos that registered
   new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the
   registry's Obsolete status will be evident.

2.  Recommendation  Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding IANA registry as

   Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and
   the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry
   in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS it is required that:

   o  the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic Obsolete.

   o  the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further
      updates and note that it too is Obsolete.

   It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement
   registry function will work to specify such a registry.

3.  Security Considerations

   This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the
   security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse
   on the day it is published; humans will have many more security
   issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead).

4.  IANA Considerations

   Metrics defined in IETF are have been typically registered in the IANA
   IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry
   [RFC4148].  However, areas for improvement of this registry have been
   identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there
   is working group consensus to do so.

   The current consensus is to withdraw designate the IPPM Metrics Registry, as
   originally described in [RFC4148]. [RFC4148], as Obsolete.

   The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB should be modified as follows,
   and the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained
   web-page describing this registry or its contents (with the RFC
   number of this memo replacing "XXXX"):


   "With the approval and publication of RFC XXXX, this module is
   designated Obsolete.

   The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents will
   be maintained as-is on the day that RFC XXXX was published.

   The original Description text follows below:

   This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics.

   ...  "

5.  Acknowledgements

   Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation
   in this memo.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels",

   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
              Registry", BCP 14, 108, RFC 2119, March 1997. 4148, August 2005.

6.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.

   [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              November 2002.

   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
              performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
              November 2002.

   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
              Registry", BCP 108,

   [RFC4737]  Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
              S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4148, August 2005. 4737,
              November 2006.

   [RFC5560]  Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric",
              RFC 5560, May 2009.

   [RFC5644]  Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
              Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
              October 2009.

6.2.  Informative References

   [....]     "None",   .

   [RFC6049]  Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
              Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.

Author's Address

   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748

   Phone: +1 732 420 1571
   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192