Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. MortonRequest for Comments: 6248                                     AT&T LabsObsoletes:4148                                               April 2011Updates:4737,5560,5644,6049Category: InformationalISSN: 2070-1721RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of MetricsAre ObsoleteAbstract   This memo reclassifiesRFC 4148, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)   Metrics Registry", as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics   Registry itself from use because it is obsolete.  The current   registry structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to   uniquely identify IPPM metrics.  Despite apparent efforts to find   current or even future users, no one responded to the call for   interest in theRFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248.Morton                        Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6248RFC 4148 is Obsolete                April 2011Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................2   2. Action to ReclassifyRFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA      Registry as Obsolete ............................................33. Security Considerations .........................................44. IANA Considerations .............................................45. Acknowledgements ................................................46. References ......................................................56.1. Normative References .......................................56.2. Informative References .....................................51.  Introduction   The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes   several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in   order to account for sources of measurement variability.  For   example,Section 13 of [RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so   that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as   payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to   disambiguate the results.   When the IPPM Metrics Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the   variability of the "Type P" notion, and the variability possible with   the many metric parameters (seeSection 4.2 of [RFC2679]), were not   fully appreciated.  Further, some of the early metric definitions   only indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in   [RFC2679], [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the   methods for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the   variability possible when characterizing a metric exactly.Morton                        Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6248RFC 4148 is Obsolete                April 2011   It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every   possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream   parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics Registry.   The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.   Evidence of this was provided by the fact that one registry entry was   syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.   The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of   "::=".  It took eight months before someone offered that a parser   found the error.  Even the original registry author agrees that the   current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to   effectively create a new registry.   Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one   responded to the call for interest in theRFC 4148 registry during   the second half of 2010.  Therefore, the IETF now declares the   registry Obsolete without any further reservations.   When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents the IANA   from registering new objects, in this case new metrics.  So, even if   a registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the   current registry, and its contents will continue to be available.   The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry   is [RFC6049].  This memo updates all previous memos that registered   new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the   registry's Obsolete status will be evident.2.  Action to ReclassifyRFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as    Obsolete   Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and   the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry   in practice, it is required that:   o  the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.   o  the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further      updates and note that it too is Obsolete.   It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement   registry function will work to specify such a registry.Morton                        Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6248RFC 4148 is Obsolete                April 20113.  Security Considerations   This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the   security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse   on the day it is published; humans will have many more security   issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead).4.  IANA Considerations   Metrics defined in the IETF have been typically registered in the   IANA IPPM Metrics Registry as described in the initial version of the   registry [RFC4148].  However, areas for improvement of this registry   have been identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited   when there is working group consensus to do so.   The current consensus is to designate the IPPM Metrics Registry,   originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete.   The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB has been modified as follows, and   the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained web   page describing this registry or its contents:   DESCRIPTION      "With the approval and publication ofRFC 6248, this module is      designated Obsolete.      The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents      will be maintained as-is on the day thatRFC 6248 was published.      The original Description text follows below:      This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics.      ... "5.  Acknowledgements   Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation   in this memo.Morton                        Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6248RFC 4148 is Obsolete                April 20116.  References6.1.  Normative References   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics              Registry",BCP 108,RFC 4148, August 2005.6.2.  Informative References   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics",RFC 2330,              May 1998.   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way              Delay Metric for IPPM",RFC 2679, September 1999.   [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM",RFC 2680, September 1999.   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)",RFC 3393,              November 2002.   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network              performance measurement with periodic streams",RFC 3432,              November 2002.   [RFC4737]  Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,              S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics",RFC 4737,              November 2006.   [RFC5560]  Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric",RFC 5560, May 2009.   [RFC5644]  Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance              Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast",RFC 5644,              October 2009.   [RFC6049]  Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of              Metrics",RFC 6049, January 2011.Morton                        Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6248RFC 4148 is Obsolete                April 2011Author's Address   Al Morton   AT&T Labs   200 Laurel Avenue South   Middletown, NJ  07748   USA   Phone: +1 732 420 1571   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192   EMail: acmorton@att.com   URI:http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/Morton                        Informational                     [Page 6]