ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

AW: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt> (Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM) to Informational RFC

2014-05-06 10:57:48
Hi Al,

thanks, I've read the entry and the comments on that page. 

The examples listed at the page are

   1 law : giving a reason to bring an action or a lawsuit against someone

       Firing people because of their age is actionable.

   2 chiefly US, formal : able to be used as a basis or reason for doing 
something

       We've received actionable information that the men are hiding in these 
mountains.

The second example still seems to bear proximity to prosecution, even 
actionable here 
doesn't have a legal context (right)? 

An excerpt of one of the comments:

    ...Actionable is first and foremost a legal term that has been diluted of 
its power 
       in that context by being used to mean any action taken,...

Also the german translations I could get from a popular translator were 
legal or indicated proximity to prosecution. That's why I commented.

I'm not a native speaker of course.

Regards,

Ruediger


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton(_at_)att(_dot_)com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2014 14:26
An: Geib, Rüdiger; Joachim(_dot_)Fabini(_at_)tuwien(_dot_)ac(_dot_)at
Cc: ippm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Betreff: RE: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt> (Advanced 
Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM) to Informational RFC

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(_dot_)Geib(_at_)telekom(_dot_)de 
[mailto:Ruediger(_dot_)Geib(_at_)telekom(_dot_)de]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 7:31 AM
To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Joachim(_dot_)Fabini(_at_)tuwien(_dot_)ac(_dot_)at
Cc: ippm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] Im Auftrag von The IESG
Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2014 23:55
An: IETF-Announce
Cc: ippm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-05-12. Exceptionally, comments 
may 
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm