RFC 6248

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

📅 published April 2011, from ietf

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

okay bestie, let's get into RFC 6248 🦋

  • Who wrote it: A. Morton, from AT&T Labs 💼
  • When: April 2011 📅
  • Category: Informational (it's for info, not a Standards Track spec) 📖
  • ISSN: 2070-1721
  • Obsoletes: RFC 4148 🪦
  • Updates: RFC 4737, RFC 5560, RFC 5644, and RFC 6049 🔄

Abstract

okay so this memo reclassifies RFC 4148, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry", as Obsolete 💀. It also withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry from use, since it's obsolete now. The registry structure was found to be too vague to uniquely identify IPPM metrics 🙈. And ngl, nobody responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010, even after people really tried to find current or future users 😭.

Status of This Memo

this doc is not an Internet Standards Track spec, it's published just for info ✨.

it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🫶. It represents IETF community consensus, got public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every IESG-approved doc is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check Section 2 of RFC 5741 for the details 💅.

info about this doc's current status, errata, and how to give feedback lives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248 🌸.

Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 🎀.

this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication. Please read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📜. Code Components extracted from this doc must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come 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 ✨

okay so the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes several ways to record options and metric parameter settings 🧚. That's so we can account for sources of measurement variability. For example, Section 13 of [RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P", so metrics can be specified in general, but specifics like payload length in octets and protocol type can replace P to disambiguate the results 💜.

when the IPPM Metrics Registry [RFC4148] was designed, nobody fully appreciated how variable the "Type P" notion was 😵. The many metric parameters were also more variable than people realized (see Section 4.2 of [RFC2679]). Plus, some early metric definitions only indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679], [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]). Later work standardized methods for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], which added even more variability when you're characterizing a metric exactly 🌈.

it's 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 💀. The proof? One registry entry was syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published. The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that doc instead of "::=". It took eight months before someone said a parser found the error 😭. Even the original registry author agrees the current registry isn't efficient, and has submitted a proposal to effectively create a new registry 🫠.

nobody responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010, even with apparent efforts to find current or even future users 🙈. So the IETF now declares the registry Obsolete without any further reservations 🪦.

when a registry is designated Obsolete, it just stops the IANA from registering new objects, which here means new metrics 🔒. So even if a registry user was eventually found, they could keep using the current registry, and its contents will keep being 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 the registry's Obsolete status will be evident 💅.

2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as Obsolete 🔄

so because of the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and the metrics actually used, plus the apparently minimal adoption of the registry in practice, it is required that:

  • the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete 🪦.
  • the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further updates and note that it too is Obsolete 📝.

it's assumed that parties who want a replacement registry function will work to specify one 🧚.

3. Security Considerations 💀

this memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the security of the Internet 🔐. (Especially if there's a zombie apocalypse on the day it's published, because humans will have way more security issues to worry about from the rise of the un-dead 🧟‍♀️💀.)

4. IANA Considerations 📋

metrics defined in the IETF have typically been 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. 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 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 💜.

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 ⭐.

Author'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/

📦 where this page comes from