draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-01.txt
	Network Working Group G. Almes		Network Working Group G. Almes
	Internet-Draft Texas A&M		Internet-Draft Texas A&M
	Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi		Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi
	Intended status: Standards Track Ixia		Intended status: Standards Track Ixia
	Expires: April 26, 2015 M. Zekauskas		Expires: July 30, 2015 M. Zekauskas
	Internet2		Internet2
	A. Morton, Ed.		A. Morton, Ed.
	AT&T Labs		AT&T Labs
	October 23, 2014		January 26, 2015
	A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM		A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
	draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00		draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets		This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
	across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed		across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed
	in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be		in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
	familiar with that document.		familiar with that document.
	Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. General Issues Regarding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.2. General Issues Regarding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. A Singleton Definition for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 6		2. A Singleton Definition for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 6
	2.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 11		3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 10
	3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14		4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14
	4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Average . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Average . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. RFC 2680 bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7. RFC 2680 bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet		This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet
	paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM		paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM
	Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar		Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar
	with that document.		with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312].
	This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion		This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion
	document for One-way Delay ("A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM")		document for One-way Delay ("A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM")
	[RFC2679]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.		[RFC2679]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in[RFC2119]. Although		document are to be interpreted as described in[RFC2119]. Although
	[RFC2119] was written with protocols in mind, the key words are used		[RFC2119] was written with protocols in mind, the key words are used
	in this document for similar reasons. They are used to ensure the		in this document for similar reasons. They are used to ensure the
	skipping to change at page 7, line 44		skipping to change at page 7, line 34
	multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the		multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
	packet is counted as received.		packet is counted as received.
	+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly		+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly
	does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.		does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.
	2.6. Methodologies:		2.6. Methodologies:
	As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend		As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
	on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,		on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
	precedence).		Differentiated Services (DS) Field [RFC2780])).
	Generally, for a given Type-P, one possible methodology would proceed		Generally, for a given Type-P, one possible methodology would proceed
	as follows:		as follows:
	+ Arrange that Src and Dst have clocks that are synchronized with		+ Arrange that Src and Dst have clocks that are synchronized with
	each other. The degree of synchronization is a parameter of the		each other. The degree of synchronization is a parameter of the
	methodology, and depends on the threshold used to determine loss (see		methodology, and depends on the threshold used to determine loss (see
	below).		below).
	+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test		+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
	skipping to change at page 10, line 23		skipping to change at page 10, line 11
	applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]		applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]
	for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different		for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different
	audiences).		audiences).
	2.8.1. Type-P		2.8.1. Type-P
	As noted in the Framework document [RFC2330], the value of the metric		As noted in the Framework document [RFC2330], the value of the metric
	may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or		may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or
	"Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the		"Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the
	protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special		protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special
	treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes. The exact Type-P		treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780]) or RSVP) changes. The exact
	used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.		Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.
	2.8.2. Loss Threshold		2.8.2. Loss Threshold
	The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large		The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large
	finite delay and loss MUST be reported.		finite delay and loss MUST be reported.
	2.8.3. Calibration Results		2.8.3. Calibration Results
	The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be		The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be
	reported. If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives		reported. If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives
	skipping to change at page 11, line 26		skipping to change at page 11, line 14
	time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random		time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
	Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf.		Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf.
	The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/		The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/
	lambda.		lambda.
	Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a sample.		Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a sample.
	Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other methods of		Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other methods of
	sampling will be appropriate for different situations. For example,		sampling will be appropriate for different situations. For example,
	a truncated Poisson distribution may be needed to avoid reactive		a truncated Poisson distribution may be needed to avoid reactive
	network state changes during intervals of inactivity, see section 4.6		network state changes during intervals of inactivity, see section 4.6
	of [RFC7321]. Sometimes, the goal is sampling with a known bias, and		of [RFC7312]. Sometimes, the goal is sampling with a known bias, and
	[RFC3432] describes a method for periodic sampling with random start		[RFC3432] describes a method for periodic sampling with random start
	times.		times.
	3.1. Metric Name:		3.1. Metric Name:
	Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream		Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream
	3.2. Metric Parameters:		3.2. Metric Parameters:
	+ Src, the IP address of a host		+ Src, the IP address of a host
	skipping to change at page 13, line 4		skipping to change at page 12, line 40
	Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of		Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of
	times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified.		times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified.
	Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to		Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to
	achieve the desired qualities.		achieve the desired qualities.
	The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the		The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the
	effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is		effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is
	statistically as unbiased as possible. The Poisson process is used		statistically as unbiased as possible. The Poisson process is used
	to schedule the loss measurements. The test packets will generally		to schedule the loss measurements. The test packets will generally
	not arrive at Dst according to a Poisson distribution, since they are		not arrive at Dst according to a Poisson distribution, since they are
	influenced by the network. Time-slotted links described in [RFC7321]		influenced by the network. Time-slotted links described in [RFC7312]
	can greatly modify the sample characteristics.		can greatly modify the sample characteristics.
	{Comment: there is, of course, no claim that real Internet traffic		{Comment: there is, of course, no claim that real Internet traffic
	arrives according to a Poisson arrival process.		arrives according to a Poisson arrival process.
	It is important to note that, in contrast to this metric, loss rates		It is important to note that, in contrast to this metric, loss rates
	observed by transport connections do not reflect unbiased samples.		observed by transport connections do not reflect unbiased samples.
	For example, TCP transmissions both (1) occur in bursts, which can		For example, TCP transmissions both (1) occur in bursts, which can
	induce loss due to the burst volume that would not otherwise have		induce loss due to the burst volume that would not otherwise have
	been observed, and (2) adapt their transmission rate in an attempt to		been observed, and (2) adapt their transmission rate in an attempt to
	skipping to change at page 14, line 4		skipping to change at page 13, line 39
	3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:		3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
	In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with		In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with
	methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the		methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the
	sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson		sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson
	arrival process of the wire-times of the sending of the test packets.		arrival process of the wire-times of the sending of the test packets.
	Problems with this process could be caused by several things,		Problems with this process could be caused by several things,
	including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to		including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to
	generate the Poisson arrival process. The Framework document shows		generate the Poisson arrival process. The Framework document shows
	how to use the Anderson-Darling test verify the accuracy of the		how to use the Anderson-Darling test to verify the accuracy of the
	Poisson process over small time frames. {Comment: The goal is to		Poisson process over small time frames. {Comment: The goal is to
	ensure that the test packets are sent "close enough" to a Poisson		ensure that the test packets are sent "close enough" to a Poisson
	schedule, and avoid periodic behavior.}		schedule, and avoid periodic behavior.}
	3.8. Reporting the metric:		3.8. Reporting the metric:
	The calibration and context for the underlying singletons MUST be		The calibration and context for the underlying singletons MUST be
	reported along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for		reported along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for
	Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss.)		Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss.)
	skipping to change at page 16, line 45		skipping to change at page 16, line 41
	4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held		4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held
	for document update" for [RFC2680], and it appears these minor		for document update" for [RFC2680], and it appears these minor
	revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and		revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and
	section 2.7).		section 2.7).
	A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in		A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in
	the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after		the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after
	[RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on		[RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on
	the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience.		the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience.
	1. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using		1. Add that RFC2330 was updated by RFC7312 in the Introduction
	ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and		(section 1).
	importance of one-way delay measurement.
	2. Clarification of the definition of "resolution" in section 1.2.		2. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using
			ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and
			importance of one-way delay measurement.
	3. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter in		3. Clarification of the definition of "resolution" in section 1.2.
	sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2, reflecting recognition of this
	parameter in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540.
	4. Addition of reference to RFC6703 in the discussion of packet life		4. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter
	time and application timeouts in section 2.5.		in sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2, reflecting recognition of this
			parameter in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540.
	5. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between		5. Addition of reference to RFC 6703 in the discussion of packet
	timestamp placement to send time or reception time in section		life time and application timeouts in section 2.5.
	2.6. Also, the text now recognizes the timestamp acquisition
	process and that practical systems measure both delay and loss
	(thus require the max waiting time parameter).
	6. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson		6. Replaced "precedence" with updated terminology (DS Field) in 2.6
	sampling in section 3, and also noting that a truncated Poisson		and 2.8.1 (with reference).
	distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in
	the IPPM Framework update, RFC7312.
	7. Recognition that Time-slotted links described in [RFC7321] can		7. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between
	greatly modify the sample characteristics, in section 3.5.		timestamp placement to send time or reception time in section
			2.6. Also, the text now recognizes the timestamp acquisition
			process and that practical systems measure both delay and loss
			(thus require the max waiting time parameter).
	8. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related		8. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson
	discussion of section 3.6, Methodologies.		sampling in section 3, and also noting that a truncated Poisson
			distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in
			the IPPM Framework update, [RFC7312].
	9.		9. Recognition that Time-slotted links described in [RFC7312] can
			greatly modify the sample characteristics, in section 3.5.
			10. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related
			discussion of section 3.6, Methodologies.
	Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance		Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance
	metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also		metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also
	contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are		contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are
	covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation.		covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation.
	Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the		Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the
	familiar outline of IPPM literature has both value and minimizes		familiar outline of IPPM literature has value and minimizes
	unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future		unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future
	IPPM RFCs.		IPPM RFCs.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	This memo makes no requests of IANA.		This memo makes no requests of IANA.
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	For [RFC2680], special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence		For [RFC2680], special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence
	skipping to change at page 18, line 35		skipping to change at page 18, line 31
	[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring		[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
	Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.		Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
	[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
	[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.		Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
			[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
			Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP
			37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
	[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network		[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
	performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,		performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP		[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
	Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",		Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
	BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.		BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
	[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting		[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
	IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",		IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
	RFC 6703, August 2012.		RFC 6703, August 2012.
	[RFC7321] McGrew, D. and P. Hoffman, "Cryptographic Algorithm		[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
	Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for		Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
	Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication		August 2014.
	Header (AH)", RFC 7321, August 2014.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,		[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
	S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,		S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
	November 2006.		November 2006.
	[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New		[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
	Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,		Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
	October 2011.		October 2011.
	[RFC7290] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test		[RFC7290] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
	Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards		Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards
	Track", RFC 7290, July 2014.		Track", RFC 7290, July 2014.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Guy Almes		Guy Almes
	Texas A&M		Texas A&M
	Email: galmes@tamu.edu		Email: almes@acm.org
	Sunil Kalidindi		Sunil Kalidindi
	Ixia		Ixia
	Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com		Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com
	Matt Zekauskas		Matt Zekauskas
	Internet2		Internet2
	Email: matt@internet2.edu		Email: matt@internet2.edu
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	54 lines changed or deleted		55 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/