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

Ted:
You raised a very good point, while many terminology classification documents are published as Informational RFCs,
However some terminology classification documents, in my personal opinion, can also be classified as a Best Current Practice (BCP) document in the
IETF, but only if it establishes a required standard for how terms are used across the community to ensure interoperability
or process consistency.

I think RFC7799 falls into this category. I am impressed that RFC7799 has been cited for 45+ times (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7799/referencedby/)

Further when I look at RFC2026, I am surprised it seems BCP is only restricted to common guidelines for policies and operations including administrative process.
I hope RFC2026 should be updated In the future to establish a better criteria for BCP documents so that draw a clear boundary with informational RFC, e.g., the title
of document should start with guideline, don’t mix guideline with protocol specification in one BCP document, etc.
Just my 2 cents.

-Qin
发件人: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2026年4月16日 15:49
收件人: [email protected]; IESG <[email protected]>
抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
主题: [bmwg] 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Envoyé : mercredi 15 avril 2026 19:21
À : [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> mailing lists by 2026-05-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]