Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton
Request for Comments: 6248 AT&T Labs
Obsoletes: 4148 April 2011
Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton
Request for Comments: 6248 AT&T Labs
Obsoletes: 4148 April 2011
Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete
RFC 4148和IP性能度量（IPPM）度量注册表已过时
Abstract
摘要
This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry", as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry itself from use because it is obsolete. The current registry structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010.
本备忘录将RFC 4148“IP性能度量（IPPM）度量注册表”重新分类为已过时，并撤销IANA IPPM度量注册表本身，因为它已过时。目前的注册表结构不够详细，无法唯一识别IPPM指标。尽管在寻找当前用户甚至未来用户方面做出了明显的努力，但在2010年下半年，没有人响应对RFC4148注册中心感兴趣的呼吁。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA
Registry as Obsolete ............................................3
3. Security Considerations .........................................4
4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
6. References ......................................................5
6.1. Normative References .......................................5
6.2. Informative References .....................................5
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA
Registry as Obsolete ............................................3
3. Security Considerations .........................................4
4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
6. References ......................................................5
6.1. Normative References .......................................5
6.2. Informative References .....................................5
The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in order to account for sources of measurement variability. For example, Section 13 of [RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to disambiguate the results.
IP性能度量（IPPM）框架[RFC2330]描述了记录选项和度量参数设置的几种方法，以说明度量可变性的来源。例如，[RFC2330]的第13节描述了“类型P”的概念，因此通常可以指定度量，但具体情况（如八位字节的有效负载长度和协议类型）可以替换P以消除结果的歧义。
When the IPPM Metrics Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the variability of the "Type P" notion, and the variability possible with the many metric parameters (see Section 4.2 of [RFC2679]), were not fully appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679], [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability possible when characterizing a metric exactly.
在设计IPPM度量注册表[RFC4148]时，“P型”概念的可变性，以及许多度量参数可能存在的可变性（见[RFC2679]第4.2节），并未得到充分理解。此外，一些早期的度量定义仅表示泊松流[RFC2330]（参见[RFC2679]、[RFC2680]和[RFC3393]中的度量），但后来的工作标准化了周期流测量方法[RFC3432]，增加了准确描述度量时可能出现的可变性。
It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics Registry.
使用IPPM Metrics Registry的当前结构注册类型P、度量参数和流参数的所有可能组合被认为是不可行的，甚至是没有用处的。
The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.
Evidence of this was provided by the fact that one registry entry was
syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
"::=". It took eight months before someone offered that a parser
found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
effectively create a new registry.
The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.
Evidence of this was provided by the fact that one registry entry was
syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
"::=". It took eight months before someone offered that a parser
found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
effectively create a new registry.
Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010. Therefore, the IETF now declares the registry Obsolete without any further reservations.
尽管在寻找当前用户甚至未来用户方面做出了明显的努力，但在2010年下半年，没有人响应对RFC4148注册中心感兴趣的呼吁。因此，IETF现在宣布注册表已过时，没有任何进一步的保留。
When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents the IANA from registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if a registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the current registry, and its contents will continue to be available.
当注册表被指定为过时时，它只会阻止IANA注册新对象，在本例中是新指标。因此，即使最终找到了注册表用户，他们也可以继续使用当前注册表，其内容将继续可用。
The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry is [RFC6049]. This memo updates all previous memos that registered new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the registry's Obsolete status will be evident.
最近发布的向注册表添加指标的备忘录是[RFC6049]。此备忘录更新了所有以前注册了新指标的备忘录，包括[RFC4737]和[RFC5560]，因此注册表的过时状态将显而易见。
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the Corresponding IANA Registry as Obsolete
2. 将RFC 4148和相应的IANA注册表重新分类为过时的措施
Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry in practice, it is required that:
由于当前指标注册和使用的指标之间存在歧义，并且在实践中明显很少采用注册，因此要求：
o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.
o IETF将[RFC4148]重新分类为已过时。
o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further updates and note that it too is Obsolete.
o IANA从进一步更新中撤销当前IPPM度量注册表，并注意它也已过时。
It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement registry function will work to specify such a registry.
假定希望建立替代登记册职能的缔约方将努力指定这种登记册。
This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse on the day it is published; humans will have many more security issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead).
这份备忘录及其建议对互联网的安全没有任何已知的影响（特别是如果在它发布的那天有一个僵尸启示录的话；由于联合国的崛起，人类将有更多的安全问题需要担心）。
Metrics defined in the IETF have been typically registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry as described in the initial version of the registry [RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there is working group consensus to do so.
IETF中定义的度量通常已在IANA IPPM度量注册表中注册，如注册表初始版本[RFC4148]中所述。然而，已经确定了该登记册有待改进的领域，在工作组达成一致意见后，必须重新审查登记册的结构。
The current consensus is to designate the IPPM Metrics Registry, originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete.
目前的共识是将[RFC4148]中最初描述的IPPM度量注册表指定为过时。
The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB has been modified as follows, and the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained web page describing this registry or its contents:
注册表MIB的描述已修改如下，前两句话应包含在任何IANA维护的描述该注册表或其内容的网页上：
DESCRIPTION
描述
"With the approval and publication of RFC 6248, this module is designated Obsolete.
“随着RFC 6248的批准和发布，此模块被指定为已过时。
The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents will be maintained as-is on the day that RFC 6248 was published.
注册表将不再更新，当前内容将保持RFC 6248发布当天的状态。
The original Description text follows below:
原文如下：
This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics.
此模块定义IP性能指标的注册表。
... "
... "
Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation in this memo.
Henk Uijterwaal在本备忘录中提出了该建议的其他理由。
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
[RFC4148]Stephan，E.“IP性能度量（IPPM）度量注册表”，BCP 108，RFC 4148，2005年8月。
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998.
[RFC2330]Paxson，V.，Almes，G.，Mahdavi，J.，和M.Mathis，“IP性能度量框架”，RFC 2330，1998年5月。
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2679]Almes，G.，Kalidini，S.，和M.Zekauskas，“IPPM的单向延迟度量”，RFC 2679，1999年9月。
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC2680]Almes，G.，Kalidini，S.，和M.Zekauskas，“IPPM的单向数据包丢失度量”，RFC 2680，1999年9月。
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC3393]Demichelis，C.和P.Chimento，“IP性能度量的IP数据包延迟变化度量（IPPM）”，RFC 3393，2002年11月。
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, November 2002.
[RFC3432]Raisanen，V.，Grotefeld，G.，和A.Morton，“周期流的网络性能测量”，RFC 3432，2002年11月。
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, November 2006.
[RFC4737]Morton，A.，Ciavattone，L.，Ramachandran，G.，Shalunov，S.，和J.Perser，“数据包重新排序度量”，RFC 4737，2006年11月。
[RFC5560] Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric", RFC 5560, May 2009.
[RFC5560]Uijterwaal，H.，“单向数据包复制度量”，RFC 5560，2009年5月。
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, October 2009.
[RFC5644]Stephan，E.，Liang，L.，和A.Morton，“IP性能度量（IPPM）：空间和多播”，RFC 56442009年10月。
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
[RFC6049]Morton，A.和E.Stephan，“度量的空间构成”，RFC 6049，2011年1月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
美国新泽西州劳雷尔大道南米德尔顿200号阿尔莫顿AT&T实验室，邮编：07748
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
EMail: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
EMail: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/