Subject: [ippm] On the metrics registry

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:00:02 +0100

IPPM group,

I've been thinking about how to proceed with the registry.

Judging from the feedback in Beijing, my impression is that the consensus
is that the current registry is not used and is not what we want.

At the same time, there is some interest in a new registry.  It is clear
from the discussion that if this idea is developed, the outcome will be
a registry that is significantly different from the current one.  The
data in the current registry might help to populate the new registry,
but this won't be much more than a fraction of the data needed.  Thus,
there is little or no harm in not maintaining the current registry.

With that in mind, I propose to:

 1. Last call draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete, starting in a week
    or two.

 2. If there is sufficient interest in working on a new registry,
    establish a group to do so.

For (2), we need a group with sufficient critical mass (say, 5
to 10 people) to make progress.  If you are interested in this, let
me know.  Goal would be to have a proposal by the Prague meeting.

Comments welcome,

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:47:33 -0500

>     establish a group to do so.

I would suggest to broaden this item with an investigation of
alternate possibilities to solve the metric identification/exchange
problem, and to (first) formalize the problem statement that the
work will address.

We heard some interesting suggestions during the Beijing session,
which led me to the impression that another IANA registry might
not be the best answer.

Al's 2 cents...

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:06:47 +0100

> which led me to the impression that another IANA registry might

I agree, though I still think that there should be sufficient
interest to work on this problem for it to become a WG item.

Henk

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:32:34 -0500

Agree completely! I sought only to broaden the topic where
you are seeking interest, to improve the probability of a
useful outcome.

Personally, I'm not committing more time to
this unless the problem statement is compelling...

At 10:06 AM 12/6/2010, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm