Subject: Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry & draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 08:22:38 -0800

Hello IPPM,

We haven't received much feedback to the list on the metrics registry document. Please do take a look at the current revisions of the documents, and provide your opinion on whether or not the documents are ready to progress!

Best,
Tommy

> On Jan 10, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello IPPM,
> 
> This email starts our working group last call for the IPPM performance metrics registry, and the corresponding initial set of registry entries. The authors have indicated that they believe the documents are sufficiently mature and complete to go ahead. You can find the details on the documents here:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/>
> 
> Since these are quite large documents, we'll be doing an extended adoption call, for several weeks, to give everyone a chance to thoroughly read the documents. Please provide your feedback by Friday, February 8, 2019.
> 
> Please send your review comments to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>, indicating whether you believe the draft is ready to send up to the IESG and if not, why not.
> 
> Best,
> Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:11:01 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Pauly" <tpauly=[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 4:22 PM

> Hello IPPM,
>
> We haven't received much feedback to the list on the metrics registry
document. Please do take a look at the current revisions of the
documents, and provide your opinion on whether or not the documents are
ready to progress!

I shall probably regret this but my opinion is a firm Not Ready.

You are asking IANA to do what seems like an awful lot of work and
making it more work than I think you have reason to do so IMHO e.g.

You are asking for urn: registrations but do not follow the procedure
for registering a new urn:

You are asking for new somethings but do not use the terminology of
RFC8126

In Initial Registry, your IANA Considerations say
   IANA is requested to populate The Performance Metric Registry defined
   in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] with the values defined above.
which seems to be asking IANA to trawl through some 78 pages to find
some 24 references to IANA and try to understand what is being asked of
them,
while not using a template as is the custom.

If I was IANA, I would say, 'On your bike'; but knowing how IANA love
rising to a challenge, they may well take it on - but if they do, I
expect
that the quality will suffer just because they are being asked
to do so much

Tom Petch

> > This email starts our working group last call for the IPPM
performance metrics registry, and the corresponding initial set of
registry entries. The authors have indicated that they believe the
documents are sufficiently mature and complete to go ahead. You can find
the details on the documents here:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/>
> >
> > Since these are quite large documents, we'll be doing an extended
adoption call, for several weeks, to give everyone a chance to
thoroughly read the documents. Please provide your feedback by Friday,
February 8, 2019.
> >
> > Please send your review comments to [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>, indicating whether you believe the draft is
ready to send up to the IESG and if not, why not.
> > Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:05:29 +0000

Hi Tom,

During the five or more early reviews with IANA,
no one has said "On your bike". The very kind IANA
folks understand exactly what their responsibilities
are in this matter. Several of the early reviews
took place after RFC8126 was published. IANA guided
the proposal for a new urn.

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry &
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
> 
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBVyg
> GkWBHJ2GD0&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBVyg
> GkWBHJ2GD0&e=>
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=WTBWdz2_4Xd96ikAVC1fjDIfQKrK5gWQc
> 0wPVJ28Qvo&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=WTBWdz2_4Xd96ikAVC1fjDIfQKrK5gWQc
> 0wPVJ28Qvo&e=>
> > >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=br9su24KnXra7yiyf2HRRIhyUXmDlefGs
> nuyprDmvqw&e=
> >

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 22:10:05 -0500

Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[email-masked]> writes:
> documents, and provide your opinion on whether or not the documents
> are ready to progress!

I haven't been following this work, but I've done quite a bit of
reviewing for Gen-Art.  And while I suspect the design and technical
work is probably quite solid by this point, I have to agree with Tom
Petch that the *document* isn't.  As he notes, the instructions to IANA
for setting up the registry are really difficult to read if you start
reading at the "IANA Considerations" section with the question, "What is
the structure of the registries?" and "What entries are to be added to
the registries?"

As a first example issue, what are the names of the registries?  I see
the text

   This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name
   Element Registry setup.  IANA is requested to create a new set of
   registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub-
   namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements"
   (urn:ietf:metrics:perf).  Each Registry, whose names are listed
   below:

      MetricType:
      [...]

Is the registry name "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance
Metric Name Elements", or is it "MetricType"?  The section really ought
to recite each registry's name, its column names, and the meanings of
the column's values.

In addition, as Tom Petch points out, the documents specify a new
second-level URN namespaces under "ietf".  (See
file:///home/worley/www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xhtml#urn-subnamespaces.)
But the drafts do not reference RFC 6924, which contains the
registration procedures for such second-level namespaces.  However, it
appears there are no particular requirements for this assignment other
than IETF review.

Dale

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:04:35 +0000

Al

To be more concrete:

The IANA website is two levels, and the terminology for some years now
has been Group and Registry.  A well chosed Group name makes the data
easy to find (many of the current Group names are not well chosen:-).

So, I imagine you want to create a new Group but the word Group is not
used in the I-D.  I see several candidates for a Group name
Registry for Performance Metrics
Performance Metric Registry
Performance Metrics Registry
New Performance Metrics Registry
which seem to used interchangeably - perhaps not such a good idea for an
I-D.  And they all use Registry which seems inappropriate for a Group so
perhaps the Group name is something else.

Dale references RFC6924 but I would disagree with him on that.   Calling
urn: the first level, ietf: the second level, then you are creating a
new third level.  RFC6924 created a registry of existing third levels
but I see no template to use there.  RFC2648 created the second level
but, reading it, it is as if the authors imagined that they were
creating all the third level that there would ever be.  Happily, the
authors of RFC3553 used their common sense and created a suitable
template in order to create a new third level; I would expect these I-Ds
to be using something very similar for a new third level.

And as you create a fourth level, perf, I expect to see guidance on what
needs to be provided for further fourth levels - or perhaps none are
anticipated.

I struggle with
The registration procedures for the
   new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards
   Action

The latter to me means
      RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track or BCP only.
while the former I interpret as requiring much less.

I also struggle with

Abstract

   This memo defines the Initial Entries for the Performance Metrics
   Registry.  This version includes:

   * removed sections which only contained examples, or a blank outine
   for new metric entries.

   * removed remaining comments (did not require action).

So, the I-Ds contain a lot of technical detail but it is IMHO not yet
tidy enough to go forward.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:05 PM

Hi Tom,

Al

> documents, and provide your opinion on whether or not the documents
are
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBV
yg
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBV
yg
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=WTBWdz2_4Xd96ikAVC1fjDIfQKrK5gW
Qc
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=br9su24KnXra7yiyf2HRRIhyUXmDlef
Gs

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:01:01 -0500

tom petch <[email-masked]> writes:
> I see several candidates for a Group name
> I-D.

That's something to avoid -- using multiple terms to mean the same
thing.  That's *really easy* for people who have been working with the
material three or four years to do, because they all know all the terms
and never even realize that they're using various terms.  But it's a
serious impediment for someone who wants to learn the subject matter by
reading the document, because they keep running into terms that aren't
defined, and the have to guess which terms mean the same thing and which
don't.

Or in short, there's a *reason* that most I-Ds these days have

   Section 2.  Terminology

Checking back with the drafts, I see that
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17 does have a terminology section, but
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-09 only has the statement "Note:
Efforts to synchronize structure and terminology with
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] will likely be incomplete until both
drafts are stable."

You really want to get the Terminology section in order (probably having
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry (normatively!) point to
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry), and then ensure all of the text uses
the terms defined therein.

Dale

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:44:43 -0800

Hi IPPM,

The chairs have decided to extend our WG Last Call period for the metrics registry through to our upcoming meeting in Prague. Please continue providing feedback and review on these, and we’ll allocate time in Prague to discuss and resolve the points that have been raised.

Thanks!
Tommy

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello IPPM,
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Tommy Pauly <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello IPPM,
>>