Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton Request for Comments: 6248 AT&T Labs Obsoletes: 4148 April 2011 Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049 Category: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721

 RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics
                            Are Obsolete


 This memo reclassifies RFC 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 Registry itself from use because it is obsolete.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 the RFC 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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Morton Informational [Page 1] RFC 6248 RFC 4148 is Obsolete April 2011

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 ( 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 Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA
    Registry as Obsolete ............................................3
 3. Security Considerations .........................................4
 4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
 5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
 6. References ......................................................5
    6.1. Normative References .......................................5
    6.2. Informative References .....................................5

1. 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 (see Section 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 6248 RFC 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 the RFC 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 Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as

 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 6248 RFC 4148 is Obsolete April 2011

3. 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:
    "With the approval and publication of RFC 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 that RFC 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 6248 RFC 4148 is Obsolete April 2011

6. References

6.1. 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 6248 RFC 4148 is Obsolete April 2011

Author's Address

 Al Morton
 AT&T Labs
 200 Laurel Avenue South
 Middletown, NJ  07748
 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
 Fax:   +1 732 368 1192

Morton Informational [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6248.txt · Last modified: 2011/04/14 17:54 (external edit)