draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03.txt   rfc6248.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Request for Comments: 6248 AT&T Labs
Obsoletes: 4148 (if approved) January 10, 2011 Obsoletes: 4148 April 2011
Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049 Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
(if approved) Category: Informational
Intended status: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721
Expires: July 14, 2011
RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics
draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03 Are Obsolete
Abstract Abstract
This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
Registry as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry Metrics Registry", as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics
itself from use because it is obsolete. The current registry Registry itself from use because it is obsolete. The current
structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely registry structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to
identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find current or uniquely identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find
even future users, no one has responded to the call for interest in current or even future users, no one responded to the call for
the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010. interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for informational purposes.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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 ....................................................2
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the corresponding IANA 2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA
registry as Obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Registry as Obsolete ............................................3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations .........................................4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References ......................................................5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References .......................................5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References .....................................5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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.
When the IPPM Metric Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the variability When the IPPM Metrics Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the
of the Type P notion, and the variability possible with the many variability of the "Type P" notion, and the variability possible with
metric parameters (see Section 4.1 of [RFC2679] ) was not fully the many metric parameters (see Section 4.2 of [RFC2679]), were not
appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only fully appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions
indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679], only indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in
[RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods [RFC2679], [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the
for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability methods for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the
possible when characterizing a metric exactly. variability 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 Metrics Registry.
The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any. The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.
Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was Evidence of this was provided by the fact that one registry entry was
syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published. syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
"::=". It took eight months before someone offered that a parser "::=". It took eight months before someone offered that a parser
found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
effectively create a new registry. effectively create a new registry.
Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one
has responded to the second half of 2010 call for interest in the RFC responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during
4148 registry. Therefore, the IETF now declares the registry the second half of 2010. Therefore, the IETF now declares the
Obsolete without any further reservations. registry Obsolete without any further reservations.
When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents IANA from When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents the IANA
registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if a from registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if
registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the a registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the
current registry and its contents will continue to be available. current registry, and its contents will continue to be available.
The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry
is [RFC6049]. This memo updates all previous memos that registered is [RFC6049]. This memo updates all previous memos that registered
new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the
registry's Obsolete status will be evident. registry's Obsolete status will be evident.
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the corresponding IANA registry as 2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as
Obsolete Obsolete
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, it is required that: in practice, it is required that:
o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete. o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.
o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further
updates and note that it too is Obsolete. updates and note that it too is Obsolete.
skipping to change at page 4, line 29 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
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 (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse
on the day it is published; humans will have many more security on the day it is published; humans will have many more security
issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead). issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead).
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in IETF have been typically registered in the IANA Metrics defined in the IETF have been typically registered in the
IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry IANA IPPM Metrics Registry as described in the initial version of the
[RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been registry [RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry
identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there have been identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited
is working group consensus to do so. when there is working group consensus to do so.
The current consensus is to designate the IPPM Metrics Registry, The current consensus is to designate the IPPM Metrics Registry,
originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete. originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete.
The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB should be modified as follows, The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB has been modified as follows, and
and the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained web
web-page describing this registry or its contents (with the RFC page describing this registry or its contents:
number of this memo replacing "XXXX"):
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"With the approval and publication of RFC XXXX, this module is "With the approval and publication of RFC 6248, this module is
designated Obsolete. designated Obsolete.
The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents will The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents
be maintained as-is on the day that RFC XXXX was published. will be maintained as-is on the day that RFC 6248 was published.
The original Description text follows below: The original Description text follows below:
This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics. This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics.
... " ... "
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation
in this memo. in this memo.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
October 2009. October 2009.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011. Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
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
Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com EMail: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 71 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/