Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development
RFC 6390

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

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It is a very good idea to publish an RFC for defining the task of a directorate. However, I do want to make a few suggestions:

1. The name "Entity" is a bit odd. The established IETF terminology is "directorate"

2. I would not make the directorate a formal requirement or mandatory part of the process. I think it is better cast as a review organization that can help the working group, the IETF, and the IESG in making the right decisions.

(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Agree with everyone else that the process stuff needs to be changed.

 > Intended status: BCP

  Agree with Ron - this should not be a BCP.


Section 2.1., paragraph 1:
>    The Performance Metrics Entity is a directorate that coordinates the
>    Performance Metric development in the IETF.

  "Entity" is a weird name for a directorate. Why don't you just call it
  a directorate?


Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    intended to supercede existing working methods within WGs that have

  Nit: s/supercede/supersede/


Section 5.3.1., paragraph 6:
>    In the context of flow records in IP Flow Informatin eXport (IPFIX),

  Nit: s/Informatin/Information/


Section 5.4.3., paragraph 3:
>    definition is to assist implementers to achieve consistents results.

  Nit: s/consistents/consistent/

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-02)
No email
send info
Section 1.1

   Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to
   the development of Performance Metrics, they each have strict
   limitations in their charters:

You seem to fail to list the PMOL WG. Is Section 1.1 simply trying to
justify the creation of PMOL? If so it can be removed from the 
document because the WG seems to exist :-)

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-03)
No email
send info
6.4.  Performance Metrics Entity Interaction with other WGs

   The Performance Metrics Entity SHALL work in partnership with the
   related protocol development WG when considering an Internet Draft
   that specifies Performance Metrics for a protocol.  A sufficient
   number of individuals with expertise must be willing to consult on
   the draft.  If the related WG has concluded, comments on the proposal
   should still be sought from key RFC authors and former chairs, or

I think "or" --> "and/or". I.e., there is not reason to choose the former over the latter if both are available.

   from the WG mailing list if it was not closed.

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-02)
No email
send info
To be clear, I am not opposed to creating the directorate.  

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-26)
No email
send info
To be clear, I am not opposed to creating the directorate.