Hi Al, hi Joachim, sorry for being late with this comment. It's not technical and not purely editorial too. If I get it right, section 4.3 uses a legal term "actionable" to describe metrics being used for fault location or fault isolation. I suggest to completely replace the word/concept "actionable" by "fault isolation". I think the purpose of the section is clarified by this change, rather than weakened. I'm not sure whether legal terminology like "actionable" should get part of IETF specifications and I personally prefer technical terminology. Regards, Ruediger --------- 4.3 Actionable The IP Performance Metrics Framework [RFC2330] includes usefulness as a metric criterion: "...The metrics must be useful to users and providers in understanding the performance they experience or provide...". When considering measurements as part of a maintenance process, evaluation of measurement results for a path under observation can draw attention to potential performance problems "somewhere" on the path. Anomaly detection is therefore an important phase and first step which already satisfies the usefulness criterion for many metrics. This concept of usefulness can be extended, becoming a sub-set of what we refer to as "actionable" criterion in the following. Central to maintenance is the isolation of the root cause of reported anomalies down to a specific sub-path, link or host, and metrics should support this second step as well. While detection of path anomaly may be the result of an on-going monitoring process, the second step of cause isolation consists of specific, directed on- demand measurements on components and sub-paths. Metrics must support users in this directed search, becoming actionable: Metrics must enable users and operators to understand path performance and SHOULD help to direct corrective actions when warranted, based on the measurement results. Besides characterizing metrics, usefulness and actionable properties are also applicable to methodologies and measurements. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@xxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von The IESG Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2014 23:55 An: IETF-Announce Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx Betreff: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt> (Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM' <draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt> as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-05-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330 with advanced considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and support of application design using IPPM metrics. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm