IPPM Working Group A. Akhter Internet-Draft B. Claise Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 18, 2014 February 14, 2014 Passive Performance Metrics Sub-Registry draft-akhter-ippm-registry-passive-00.txt Abstract This memo defines the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry of the Performance Metric Registry. This sub-registry will contain Passive Performance Metrics, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and possibly applicable to other IETF metrics. IPPM Passive metric registration is meant to allow wider adoption of common metrics in an inter-operable way. There are challenges with metric interoperability and adoption (to name a few) due to flexible input parameters, confusion between many similar metrics, and varying output formats. This memo proposes a way to organize registry entries into columns that are well-defined, permitting consistent development of entries over time (a column may marked NA if it is not applicable for that metric). The design is intended to foster development of registry entries based on existing reference RFCs, whilst each column serves as a check-list item to avoid omissions during the registration process. Every entry in the registry, before IANA action, requires Expert review as defined by concurrent IETF work in progress "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric- registry). The document contains example entries for the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry: a registry entry for a passive metric based on octetTotalCount as defined in RFC5102 and a protocol specific passive metric based on RTP packets lost as defined in RFC3550. The examples are for Informational purposes and do not create any entry in the IANA registry. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 (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 Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Background and Motivation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Passive Registry Categories and Columns . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Common Registry Indexes and Information . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.3. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.4. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.5. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.6. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.7. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.8. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.9. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 4.1.10. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Example Passive Octet Count Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Example BLANK Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Registry Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1.1. Element Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.3. Metric Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.4. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.5. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.6. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.7. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.8. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1.9. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.3. Measurement Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.4. Output Type and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.5. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . . 11 7.4. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction The IETF has been specifying and continues to specify Performance Metrics. While IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is the working group (WG) primarily focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF, other working groups, have also specified Performance Metrics: The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework" [XRBLOCK] WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611], which establishes a framework to allow new information to be conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", [RFC3550]. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 The Benchmarking Methodology" [BMWG] WG proposed some Peformance Metrics as part of the benchmarking methodology. The IP Flow Information eXport WG (IPFIX) [IPFIX] Information elements related to performance metrics are currently proposed. The Performance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL) [PMOL], a concluded working group, defined some Peformance Metrics related to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. It is expected that more and more Performance Metrics will be defined in the future, not only IP based metrics, but also protocol-specific ones and application-specific ones. However, there is currently no Performance Metrics registry in IANA. "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric- registry) defines a common registry for metrics. The registry proposes the creation of two sub-registries, one for active metrics and another for passive measurements. This document defines the Passive Performance Measurements Sub- Registry of the Performance Metric Registry. This sub-registry will contain passive performance metrics that meet the criteria set by the IETF and review of the Performance Metric Experts. It is expected that the majority of the metrics will have been defined elsewhere within the IETF working groups such as IPPM, BMWG, IPFIX, etc. This sub-registry is part of the Performance Metric Registry [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] which specifies that all sub- registries must contain at least the following common fields: the identifier, the name, the status, the requester, the revision, the revision date, the description for each entry, and the reference specifications used as the foundation for the Registered Performance Metric (see [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]). In addition to these common fields the passive metrics sub-registry has additional fields that provide the necessary background for interoperability and adoption. 2. Background and Motivation: (from draft-mornuley-ippm-registry-active): One clear motivation for having such a registry is to allow a controller to request a measurement agent to perform a measurement using a specific metric (see [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]). Such a request can be performed using any control protocol that refers to the value assigned to the specific metric in the registry. Similarly, the measurement agent can report the results of the Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 measurement and by referring to the metric value it can unequivocally identify the metric that the results correspond to. There are several side benefits of having a registry with well-chosen entries. First, the registry could serve as an inventory of useful and used metrics that are normally supported by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the results of the metrics would be comparable even if they are performed by different implementations and in different networks, as the metric and method is unambiguously defined. 3. Scope [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] defines the overall structure for a Performance Metric Registry and provides guidance for defining a sub registry. This document defines the Passive Performance Metrics Sub-registry; passive metrics are those where the measurements are based on user traffic. Specifically, this traffic has not been generated for the purpose of measurement. A row in the registry corresponds to one Registered Performance Metric, with entries in the various columns specifying the metric. Section 4 defines the additional columns for a Registered Passive Performance Metric. As discussed in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], each entry (row) must be tightly defined; the definition must leave open only a few parameters that do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement (such as source and destination addresses), and so promotes comparable results across independent implementations. Also, each registered entry must be based on existing reference RFCs (or other standards) for performance metrics, and must be operationally useful and have significant industry interest. This is ensured by expert review for every entry before IANA action. 4. Passive Registry Categories and Columns This section defines the categories and columns of the registry. Below, categories are described at the 4.x heading level, and columns are at the 4.x.y heading level. There are three categories, divided into common information (from [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]), metric definition and an open Comments section. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 4.1. Common Registry Indexes and Information This category has multiple indexes to each registry entry. It is defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]: 4.1.1. Identifier Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]. In order to have the document self contained, we could copy the definition from [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] here, but i guess we should do that once the definition in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] is stable. 4.1.2. Name Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above. 4.1.3. Status Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above. 4.1.4. Requester Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above. 4.1.5. Revision Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above. 4.1.6. Revision Date Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above. 4.1.7. Description Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the above. 4.1.8. Reference Specification(s) Defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the above. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 4.1.9. Metric Definition This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance metric. 4.1.9.1. Reference Definition This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) defining the metric, as well as any supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition for implementations. 4.1.9.2. Fixed Parameters Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in the Registry. The measurement system uses these values. Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated as Fixed Parameters. For example, for RTP packet loss calculation relies on the validation of a packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a fixed parameter. A Parameter which is Fixed for one Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry. 4.1.10. Method of Measurement This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous method for implementations. 4.1.10.1. Traffic Filter Criteria The filter specifies the constraints that the measurement method used is valid (or invalid) for. This includes valid packet sampling ranges, width of allowed traffic matches (eg. all traffic on interface, UDP packets packets in a flow (eg. same TCP session). It is possible that the measurement method may not have a specific limitation. However, this specific registry entry with it's combination of fixed parameters implies restrictions. These restrictions would be listed in this field. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 4.1.10.2. Measurement Timing Measurement timing defines the behavior of the measurement method with respect to timing. Is the measurement continuous? How long is the measurement interval? 4.1.10.3. Output Type and Data Format For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is output, this will be specified here. Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. Each entry in the output type column contains the following information: o Value: The name of the output type o Data Format: provided to simplify the communication with collection systems and implementation of measurement devices. o Reference: the specification where the output type is defined The output type defines the type of result that the metric produces. It can be the raw results or it can be some form of statistic. The specification of the output type must define the format of the output. In some systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw"). 4.1.10.4. Metric Units The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension or units of measure. This column provides the units. When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the units for each measured value. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 4.1.10.5. Run-time Parameters and Data Format Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined, configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results for the context to be complete. However, the values of these parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user (they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution). Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated as Run-Time Parameters. The Data Format of each Run-time Parameter SHALL be specified in this column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement devices. Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and other information essential to the method of measurement. 4.2. Comments and Remarks Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen issues to be addressed by simply updating this Informational entry. 5. Example Passive Octet Count Entry tbd 6. Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count tbd 7. Example BLANK Registry Entry This section is Informational. (?) This section gives an example registry entry for the . 7.1. Registry Indexes This category includes multiple indexes to the registry entries, the element ID and metric name. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 7.1.1. Element Identifier An integer having enough digits to uniquely identify each entry in the Registry. 7.1.2. Metric Name A metric naming convention is TBD. 7.1.3. Metric Description A metric Description is TBD. 7.1.4. Status Current 7.1.5. Requester TBD 7.1.6. Revision 0 7.1.7. Revision Date TBD 7.1.8. Description TBD 7.1.9. Reference Specification(s) Section YY, RFCXXXX 7.2. Metric Definition 7.2.1. Reference Definition < possible section reference> 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters Fixed Parameters are input factors that must be determined and embedded in the measurement system for use when needed. The values of these parameters is specified in the Registry. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 7.3. Method of Measurement 7.3.1. Reference Method For .
7.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria 7.3.3. Measurement Timing < list timing requirements and limitations > 7.3.4. Output Type and Data Format The output type defines the type of result that the metric produces. o Value: o Data Format: (There may be some precedent to follow here, but otherwise use 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format, see section 6 of [RFC5905]). o Reference:
7.3.5. Metric Units The measured results are expressed in ,
. 7.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format Run-time Parameters are input factors that must be determined, configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results for the context to be complete. . Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 7.4. Comments and Remarks Additional (Informational) details for this entry 8. Security Considerations This registry has no known implications on Internet Security. 9. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to create The Passive Performance Metric Sub- registry within the Performance Metric Registry defined in [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry]. The Sub-registry will contain the following categories and (bullet) columns, (as defined in section 3 above): Common Registry Indexes and Info o Identifier o Name o Status o Requester o Revision o Revision Date o Description o Reference Specification(s) Metric Definition o Reference Definition o Fixed Parameters Method of Measurement o Reference Method o Stream Type and Parameters o Output type and Data format Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 o Metric Units o Run-time Parameters Comments and Remarks 10. Acknowledgements The authors thank the prior work of Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo and Phil Eardley in "draft-mornuley-ippm-registry-active" which was used both as a template for this document and source of text. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 11.2. Informative References [BMWG] IETF, , "Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG) Working Group, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/charter/", . [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap- framework-03 (work in progress), January 2014. [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry] Bagnulo, M., Claise, B., Eardley, P., and A. Morton, "Registry for Performance Metrics", draft-manyfolks-ippm- metric-registry-00 (work in progress), February 2014. [IPFIX] IETF, , "IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Working Group, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/charter/", . [PMOL] IETF, , "IPerformance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL) Working Group, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pmol/charter/", . [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998. Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry February 2014 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010. [XRBLOCK] IETF, , "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework (XRBLOCK), http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/xrblock/charter/", . Authors' Addresses Aamer Akhter Cisco Systems, Inc. 7025 Kit Creek Road RTP, NC 27709 USA Email: aakhter@cisco.com Benoit Claise Cisco Systems, Inc. De Kleetlaan 6a b1 1831 Diegem Belgium Phone: +32 2 704 5622 Email: bclaise@cisco.com Akhter & Claise Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]