Hi Rüdiger, It seems that there are multiple definitions of the term, and it is associated with both legal and general contexts. see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actionable for example. The main point of the section is to expand the concept of usefulness by refining metrics to direct corrective actions. Fault isolation is only a one of the possible actions, and there are cases where the action would be to restore service without a detailed investigation. The requirement wording allows action in this more broad scope, and doesn't use the term "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. So, although there is a version of the definition for the legal world, I think we can be comfortable based on the wording of the section that this use is outside the realm of law (same as the context for virtually all RFCs). regards, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Ruediger.Geib@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 7:31 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Joachim.Fabini@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: AW: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt> > (Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM) to Informational RFC > > 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