Application Performance Measurement MIB
RFC 3729

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Bert Wijnen) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

(Steven Bellovin) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Randy Bush) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2003-09-30)
No email
send info
Going through the HTTP example in some detail, I found it hard to understand
how I would use this data in the presence of services built on top of HTTP.  The
URL matching algorithm seems designed to allow an administrator to say something
like "maps.cgi?" as a prefix will have a different exception processing than
"zipcode.cgi?".That seems reasonable for exception reporting, for some level
of understanding of the likely inputs.  apmThroughputExceptionMinTime
seems, however, seems likely to obscure more than it reveals, since it makes
a presumption about the "fixed" transaction costs.  The transaction costs
include things like handshake, which are dependent on outside factors and do not
seem to be fixed at all.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
No further objection given Ted's DISCUSS. Considering that the optimal architecture envisioned by the document is one where there is an agent in every enterprise desktop reporting the target and outcome of all network transactions to a centralized server... there do seem to be serious end-user privacy concerns.

(Alex Zinin) No Objection