Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development
RFC 6390

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
12 (System) Notify list changed from pmol-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alexey Melnikov
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ronald Bonica
2011-10-06
12 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-10-06
12 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'BCP 170; RFC 6390
'
2011-10-05
12 (System) RFC published
2011-08-12
12 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-08-11
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-08-11
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-08-11
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-08-11
12 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-08-11
12 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-08-11
12 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-08-11
12 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-30
12 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss
2011-07-30
12 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-28
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-12.txt
2011-07-27
12 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-26
12 Robert Sparks [Ballot discuss]
2011-07-26
12 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-25
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-11.txt
2011-07-25
12 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] Position for Gonzalo Camarillo has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-25
12 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ron Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-07-05
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
(Updating to reflect -10)

1) cleared.

2) cleared.

3) cleared.

5) Section 6.2 is the section of the document that is going to ...
2011-07-01
12 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
2011-07-01
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
(Updating to reflect -10)

1) Section 6.3 is not adding any new process (it is recommending using the directorate framework we already have, ...
2011-07-01
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-10.txt
2011-07-01
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-07-01
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-09.txt
2011-03-26
12 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-03-26
12 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
To be clear, I am not opposed to creating the directorate.
2011-03-26
12 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
I'm picking up Tim's discuss position.

In my opinion, the sections that establish a new directorate and make it part of
the official ...
2011-03-26
12 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2011-02-07
12 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In general I think this document is adding some rather weak requirements on process (lots of "SHOULD"s).

I have passed my DISCUSS to ...
2011-02-07
12 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-02-06
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
1) "defined in a similar way" is very vague.

2) The language in 5.3.1 stating that measurements need to be non-overlapping and contiguous ...
2011-02-06
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
(Editing point 2 to adopt Alexey's discuss)

1) Section 6.3 is not adding any new process (it is recommending using the directorate framework ...
2011-02-03
12 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-02-03
12 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-02-03
12 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Agree with everyone else that the process stuff needs to be changed.

> Intended status: BCP

  Agree with Ron - this should ...
2011-02-03
12 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
12 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
I support everybody else's discuss wrt to the process section.
2011-02-03
12 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
12 Gonzalo Camarillo
[Ballot comment]
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08

The reference to RFC 2119 appears right after the Abstract. I would place it inside the Terminology section (Section 2 instead).

Section ...
2011-02-03
12 Gonzalo Camarillo
[Ballot discuss]
Section 6 describes a policy to accept new metrics and establishes a directorate. As you know, RFC 5226 defines a set of policies ...
2011-02-03
12 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-03
12 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
6.4.  Performance Metrics Entity Interaction with other WGs

  The Performance Metrics Entity SHALL work in partnership with the
  related protocol development ...
2011-02-03
12 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
In general I think this document is adding some rather weak requirements on process (lots of "SHOULD"s).

I also have the following question ...
2011-02-03
12 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
It is a very good idea to publish an RFC for defining the task of a directorate. However, I do want to make ...
2011-02-02
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
To be clear, I am not opposed to creating the directorate.
2011-02-02
12 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
In my opinion, the sections that establish a new directorate and make it part of the official process require an
"Updates 2026".  In ...
2011-02-02
12 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 1.1

  Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to
  the development of Performance Metrics, they each have ...
2011-02-02
12 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 1.1

  Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to
  the development of Performance Metrics, they each have ...
2011-02-02
12 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 1.1

  Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to
  the development of Performance Metrics, they each have ...
2011-02-02
12 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with Ron that if what is wanted is a Directorate, it should
simply be created by the AD. Furthermore, I am ...
2011-02-02
12 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
Point 1:

This document appears to have two purposes:

"The purpose of this document is to define a framework and a process for ...
2011-02-02
12 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
1) "defined in a similar way" is very vague.

2) The language in 5.3.1 stating that measurements need to be non-overlapping and contiguous ...
2011-02-02
12 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
1) Section 6.3 is not adding any new process (it is recommending using the directorate framework we already have, asking an AD to ...
2011-02-02
12 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
12 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-01
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty.
2011-02-01
12 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-31
12 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-28
12 Cindy Morgan Area acronym has been changed to ops from gen
2011-01-28
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt
2011-01-27
12 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu Ballot has been issued
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu Created "Approve" ballot
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-25
12 Dan Romascanu Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-03
2011-01-20
12 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing
2011-01-20
12 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing
2011-01-20
12 David Harrington Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVDIR to Henk Uijterwaal was rejected
2011-01-19
12 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal
2011-01-19
12 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal
2011-01-18
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2011-01-18
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2011-01-13
12 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2011-01-13
12 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> ...
2011-01-13
12 Dan Romascanu Last Call was requested
2011-01-13
12 Dan Romascanu State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup.
2011-01-13
12 Dan Romascanu Last Call text changed
2011-01-13
12 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-01-13
12 (System) Last call text was added
2011-01-13
12 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-01-13
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-01-13
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt
2011-01-11
12 Dan Romascanu State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
2011-01-11
12 Dan Romascanu State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2010-12-01
12 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he ...
2010-12-01
12 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2010-12-01
12 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Al Morton (acmorton@att.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2010-11-23
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06.txt
2010-10-10
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05.txt
2010-07-26
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-04.txt
2010-04-29
12 (System) Document has expired
2009-10-26
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-03.txt
2009-03-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-02.txt
2008-11-02
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-01.txt
2008-07-04
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt