Subject: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:33:57 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a significant issue related to the approval of this initial registry,
and then a minor point.

(1) This is the significant issue:

§2:

   This document defines the initial set of Performance Metrics Registry
   entries, for which IETF approval (following development in the IP
   Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group) will satisfy the
   requirement for Expert Review.  Most are Active Performance Metrics,
   which are based on RFCs prepared in the IPPM working group of the
   IETF, according to their framework [RFC2330] and its updates.

s/IETF approval/IESG Approval
There is no "IETF approval" policy in rfc8126.

Even though it is self-serving for this document to provide guidance on the
approval for the new registry entries, I think that it should be possible to do
so using IESG Approval given that these initial entries into the new registry
have been reviewed by the WG.  However, draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry only
explicitly talks about using Specification Required (including Expert Review),
and it makes no exceptions.

This document should not make statements about criteria used for this initial
registration, so §2 should be deleted.

draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry should be explicit about the initial population
of the registry.  I am them balloting DISCUSS on that other document to address
the approval of the initial registry entries in this document.

(2) Minor point:

§1: "The process in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] also requires that new
entries are administered by IANA through Expert Review or IETF Standards
action, which will ensure that the metrics are tightly defined."   The
registration policy defined in I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry is "Specification
Required", which requires the review of an expert.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:08:52 +0000

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks again for your review and comments.

Please see replies marked [acm] below.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:34 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Brian Trammell
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-
> 14: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=ILN34KWl728d4MwapM6b2uFD-
> AN_qvG3pywSVlI__xI&s=nSlIN1hkc12vDUVhxTXZ0oJvW7f6yWlIlilAarPCnE4&e=
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=ILN34KWl728d4MwapM6b2uFD-
> AN_qvG3pywSVlI__xI&s=J65nyx-0afWUBtjfKbF2_j7nKQmwb87O9qpiPkDnXkE&e=
> 
> 
> 
[acm] 
OK, but I think it is fair to keep parts of Section 2, which is the Scope.

Here's the revised version I suggest:
This document defines a set of initial Performance Metrics Registry entries. 
Most are Active Performance Metrics, which are based on RFCs prepared in the 
IPPM working group of the IETF, according to their framework [RFC2330] and its
updates.

> the approval of the initial registry entries in this document.
[acm] 
Added an explicit mention of the initial-registry draft at the end of the Scope
of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.

> Required", which requires the review of an expert.
[acm] 
good catch, fixed.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:31:19 -0800

Thanks Al, the changes below los good to me.

Alvaro.

On December 4, 2019 at 11:09:11 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Hi Alvaro,

[acm]

Here's the revised version I suggest:
This document defines a set of initial Performance Metrics Registry
entries.
Most are Active Performance Metrics, which are based on RFCs prepared in
the
IPPM working group of the IETF, according to their framework [RFC2330] and
its
updates.

> the approval of the initial registry entries in this document.
[acm]
Added an explicit mention of the initial-registry draft at the end of the
Scope
of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.

[acm]
good catch, fixed.