Subject: [ippm] Changes in the registry document (was Re: review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-03

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:07:48 +0200

The proposed changes to address these comments are:

The abstract now reads:

- This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry 
and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics.

The introduction now reads:

- This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a
Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures
and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo.
Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other
organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY
use the format for its purposes. The authors make no guarantee of the
format's applicability to any possible set of Performance Metrics
envisaged by other organizations. In the rest of this document, unless
we explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained Performance
Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics Registry.

The scope section now reads:
- This document is meant mainly for two different audiences.  For those
defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides specifications and
best practices to be used in deciding which Registered Performance 
Metrics are
useful for a measurement study, instructions for
writing the text for each column of the Registered Performance Metrics, and
information on the supporting documentation required for the new
Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and including the publication 
of one or more
RFCs or I-Ds describing it).  For the appointed Performance Metrics 
Experts and
for IANA personnel administering the new IANA Performance Metric
Registry, it defines a set of acceptance criteria
against which these proposed Registered Performance Metrics should be
evaluated. In addition, this document may be useful for other 
organization who
are defining a Performance Metric registry
of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric registry defined in 
this document.

Note that the Introduction doenst mention LMAP at all, so the last item 
would fit in the introduction, so I added the following text in the 
Interoperability section which actually talks about LMAP:
- It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for using 
not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but also other 
registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined by other 
organizations or private ones. However, others who are creating 
Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework are encouraged 
to use the Registry format defined in this document, because this makes 
it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement Agents (MAs) to 
programmatically use information found in those other Registries' entries.

I hope these changes address the comments.
Regards, marcelo

El 18/09/15 a las 00:49, STARK, BARBARA H escribió:
>> Co-authors don't want to add a *goal* that the Registry format be re-used,
>> because:
> I've thought some more, and would like to suggest the following, much briefer, slightly modified, and more concrete proposal. This is mostly consistent with the previous proposal.
>
> 1. Acknowledge in Abstract, Introduction, and Scope that the document defines a Registry format. [This is really important, in order for other orgs to feel comfortable referencing just the format.]
> 2. Mention in the Introduction that while the Registry format is being defined for the IANA Registry, other Registries may choose to use it as well. (that's the non-normative may)
> 3. Also in the Introduction, mention that others who are creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework are encouraged to use the Registry format, because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other Registries' entries.
>
> Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:42:32 -0400

Hi Marcelo,

all your proposals work for me, thanks!
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:08 AM
> To: [email-masked]; STARK, BARBARA H; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); EARDLEY,
> Phil; Benoit Claise
> Subject: Changes in the registry document (was Re: [ippm] review of
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-03
> 
> defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides specifications
> and best practices to be used in deciding which Registered Performance
> Metrics are useful for a measurement study, instructions for writing the
> text for each column of the Registered Performance Metrics, and
> of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it).  For the appointed
> Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel administering the new
> IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a set of acceptance
> criteria against which these proposed Registered Performance Metrics
> should be evaluated. In addition, this document may be useful for other
> organization who are defining a Performance Metric registry of its own,
> who can rely on the Performance Metric registry defined in this
> document.
> 
> > I've thought some more, and would like to suggest the following, much
> briefer, slightly modified, and more concrete proposal. This is mostly
> consistent with the previous proposal.
> >
> > 1. Acknowledge in Abstract, Introduction, and Scope that the document
> > defines a Registry format. [This is really important, in order for
> > other orgs to feel comfortable referencing just the format.] 2.
> Mention in the Introduction that while the Registry format is being
> defined for the IANA Registry, other Registries may choose to use it as
> well. (that's the non-normative may) 3. Also in the Introduction,
> mention that others who are creating Registries to be used in the
> context of an LMAP framework are encouraged to use the Registry format,
> because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement Agents
> (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other
> Registries' entries.
> >
> > Barbara
> >

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:12:42 +0200

> all your proposals work for me, thanks!
for me too.

Regards, Benoit
> .