Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

At 06:03 AM 4/18/2012, Eliot Lear wrote:
>This document is almost ready for publication.  Perhaps also in an 
>academic journal ;-)

Thanks for the compliment, and your review.
replies below,
Al


>Minor comments:
>
>I think the authors should seriously question the intended status of 
>this document.  Is this really a BCP?  The normative language, as 
>applied, suggests so.  See, for instance:
>>    The minimal report on measurements MUST include both Loss and Delay
>>    Metrics.
>
>Alternatively, statements like this one should probably be stated in 
>a more matter-of-fact way, especially since it's rather obvious.

A few 2119 requirements terms slipped into sections 6 and 7,
but are not really needed and will be replaced with lower case terms.


>One additional comment: this work is EXTREMELY DENSE.  It is very 
>well referenced, but there a number of new concepts introduced, 
>nearly begging for separate works.  One example is introduction of 
>Type-C, where some additional expansion might be helpful to the 
>reader (like me).

It will be left for further work on TCP metrics to flesh-out
Type-C, but new references to RFC 3148 and 6349 should help
the reader for now.


>Nits:
>
>Section 6.1: expand first use of acronyms OWAMP and TWAMP.

done.