Download
1 / 5
50 likes | 179 Views
This discussion addresses the current state of the metrics registry introduced in RFC4148, highlighting its limited use over the years and the challenges in maintaining it. Key issues include a lack of registered parameters for metrics and a typographical error that went unnoticed for months. The conversation focuses on possible next steps: withdrawing the registry, expanding it, or replacing it entirely. Considerations on the need for a registry, its content, and language standards will be discussed, along with proposals for moving forward, culminating in a decision before the upcoming Beijing meeting in November 2010.
E N D
Registry Discussion HenkUijterwaal
Background • Metrics registry introduced in RFC4148 • Little use over the years • It took 8 months for somebody to notice a typo in an update. Parser would have choked on it • Problem: only the metrics are registered, not the parameters for the metrics • Maintaining the registry does require work from document authors and IANA
Question • What to do next? • Withdraw the current registry, don’t replace it • Expand the current registry to something that is useful • Drop the current registry, replace by something that is considered useful
Things to consider • Is there a need for a registry? • What should be in the registry? • Metrics • Parameters • Language for the registry? • SMIv2? Other? • Consult with WG’s who use the registry? • Which ones?
Next steps • 2 proposals presented today • Discussion here and on the list • Decision before Beijing (11/2010) • Implement decision • If there is a need for an update or new registry: assemble team in Beijing
