A Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-mornulo-ippm-registry-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marcelo Bagnulo , Al Morton , Philip Eardley | ||
| Last updated | 2014-04-03 (Latest revision 2013-09-30) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This memo investigates a scheme to organize registry entries, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and applicable to all IETF metrics. Three aspects make IPPM metric registration difficult: (1) Use of the Type-P notion to allow users to specify their own packet types. (2) Use of flexible input variables, called Parameters in IPPM definitions, some which determine the quantity measured and others which should not be specified until execution of the measurement. (3) Allowing flexibility in choice of statistics to summarize the results on a stream of measurement packets. Specifically, this memo proposes a way to organize registry entries into columns that are well- defined, permiting consistent development of entries over time. Also, this fosters development of registry entries based on existing reference RFCs for performance metrics, and requires expert review for every entry before IANA action.
Authors
Marcelo Bagnulo
Al Morton
Philip Eardley
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)