Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 6248

RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete

Pages: 6
Informational
Obsoletes:  4148
Updates:  4737556056446049

Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Morton
Request for Comments: 6248                                     AT&T Labs
Obsoletes: 4148                                               April 2011
Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


   RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics
                              Are Obsolete

Abstract

This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry", as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry itself from use because it is obsolete.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 responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the 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. 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.
Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as Obsolete ............................................3 3. Security Considerations .........................................4 4. IANA Considerations .............................................4 5. Acknowledgements ................................................4 6. References ......................................................5 6.1. Normative References .......................................5 6.2. Informative References .....................................5

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 Metrics Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the variability of the "Type P" notion, and the variability possible with the many metric parameters (see Section 4.2 of [RFC2679]), were 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.
Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 3
   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.

   The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.
   Evidence of this was 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 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.

   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.  Therefore, the IETF now declares the
   registry Obsolete without any further reservations.

   When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents the 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. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as Obsolete

Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry in practice, it is required that: o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as 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.
Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 4

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 the IETF have been typically registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry as described in the 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 designate the IPPM Metrics Registry, originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete. The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB has been modified as follows, and the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained web page describing this registry or its contents: DESCRIPTION "With the approval and publication of RFC 6248, 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 6248 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.
Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 5

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry", BCP 108, RFC 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. [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 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. [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
Top   ToC   RFC6248 - Page 6

Author's Address

Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ 07748 USA Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 EMail: acmorton@att.com URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/