[ippm] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Last Call: Reclassifying "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In -Between)" (RFC7799)

Hi Med,

The tweak appears to be the additional sentence:

The classification guidelines set in this RFC is used as a
reference to position measurement methods and establish a structured approach
to capture measurement method characteristics.

I don't think this justifies this document being a BCP.  It's a common
reference now, and it doesn't recommend practices as much as providing a
taxonomy and description of them.

I'm hardly going to go too far out on limb on this, but I would recommend
the IESG think very carefully about whether this kind of document needs to
be a BCP to be effective.  If it does, that's going to set a precedent for
a lot of other work that is currently in the state "oft-cited
informational" and I honestly don't think we need or want that.

Having asked the IESG to consider this, I will step back from further
objection.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 6:41 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
>
>
> Sure. The rationale was tweaked a bit.
>
>
>
> I let IPPM experts further expand if any additional clarification is
> needed.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Ted Hardie <[email protected]>
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 15 avril 2026 19:21
> *À :* [email protected]
> *Objet :* [Last-Call] Re: Last Call: Reclassifying "Active and Passive
> Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)" (RFC7799)
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear IESG,
>
>
>
> I am a little confused by the proposal.  The document gives as its purpose:
>
>
>
>    The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive
>
>    versions of metrics and methods that are consistent with the long-
>
>    time usage of these adjectives in the Internet measurement community
>
>    and especially the IETF.  Since the science of measurement is
>
>    expanding, we provide a category for combinations of the traditional
>
>    extremes, treating Active and Passive as a continuum and designating
>
>    combinations of their attributes as Hybrid Methods.
>
>
>
>    Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions
>
>    to evaluate new methods as they emerge.
>
> It does an admiral job at that, and I can see in the write-up that this
> has been reflect in numerous citations in both RFCs and in the work of
> other SDOs.  What has changed that this needs a new status to do its job?
> The supporting document only says this:
>
>
>
> RFC 7799 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7799/> is one of the key documents that record IETF current best thoughts
>
> about the classification of various measurement metrics and methods. The
>
> document is normatively cited by other RFCs and cited outside IPPM, including
>
> by other SDOs.
>
>
>
> The experience so far supports reclassification of RFC 7799 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7799/> from Informational
>
> to BCP. This is also consistent with the recent approval by the IESG of the
>
> companion document draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/> that will be
>
> published as a BCP. Both documents will be published under the same BCP: BCP 161
>
> The document doesn't really recommend specific practices so much as
> describe a broad range of them, and it would be helpful to understand why
> that suddenly needs to be a BCP rather than the well-cited Informational it
> already is.
>
>
>
> I'm sure others closer to the matter understand this, but if you could
> explain or, better yet, update the reclassification rational with more
> detail, I think it would help the broader community follow this change.
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 5:20 PM The IESG <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the
> following status changes:
>
> - RFC7799 from Informational to Best Current Practice
>     (Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between))
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ippm-active-passive-methods/
>
> 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
> [email protected] mailing lists by 2026-05-13. Exceptionally, comments
> may
> be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The affected document can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7799/
>
> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ippm-active-passive-methods/ballot/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]