IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm

Weiqiang Sun <sun.weiqiang@gmail.com> Mon, 21 May 2012 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sun.weiqiang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABAD21F85D5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cWdLw681Xtyc for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0827021F85CF for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so6396834dac.31 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T63EI4a4xfSnJnjaL8wwGnf3a49hkRF839+tQydWp+8=; b=MUtWRmXavh40QMDEEebgEBXhOSRxy4WPWrl+pMk8B1nDYngg4owGGetejdQLK40mGs hh7MKUZRkxm25sQYAAQ0RtvsBlUc5q1vjUUPJxUaFcN4vpN063qxHr6n88gODBkUnntx q7Yst0Y/Nt8oswcdNmTweExemL+C19vMsLwxWYVmXyst74rZ3SNO6i64gSYrdLRNkVa8 NPa5GoY3iIB/YudBg/8YL5HPAk0uTHPELEEDmikjQgNMmMtROUdqLMBV7URFItxAxRSe QqCRRd3XjfliuEp6+Eys5OAfPdG15j4xBj2FRoZt7E69kirlsw4YrBiaVbONFh17PUGh EVrg==
Received: by 10.68.130.67 with SMTP id oc3mr16257186pbb.18.1337576751524; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.6.100] ([202.120.39.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gl5sm21026882pbc.58.2012.05.20.22.05.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 May 2012 22:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:05:36 +0800
From: Weiqiang Sun <sun.weiqiang@gmail.com>
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, ccamp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CBDFEDA5.126EA%sun.weiqiang@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm
In-Reply-To: <201205201341.q4KDfg7Y014851@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: dbrungard@att.com
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 05:06:03 -0000

Al,

Thanks for the review. The authors will address your comments/suggestions
in future revisions.

Best regards,
Weiqiang

On 5/20/12 9:42 PM, "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com> wrote:

>Lou and Deborah,
>
>As requested, my brief review of the dpm draft is below.
>I've also asked for a Performance Metrics Directorate volunteer
>who could review the draft quickly. If another review is coming,
>I'll let you know.
>
>Al
>
>
>>Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:06:22 -0400
>>To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
>>From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
>>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm
>>Cc: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
>>
>>Hi Lou,
>>
>>I took a quick look this morning, the authors have nicely adopted
>>the familiar metric framework used in other performance work,
>>and I like the metric naming - very straightforward to sort out
>>the names once you read the explanation in section 3,
>>although they could say explicitly how they've done it, so it lends
>>to extension in the future.
>>
>>I would suggest they give the acronym expansion in each section.
>>for example:
>>
>>
>>>5.2.  Metric Name
>>>
>>>    RRFD  =  RESV Received, Forward Datapath
>>
>>
>>One word choice in section 1 could be improved:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    This document defines a series of performance metrics to evaluate
>>>the
>>>    availability of data path during the signaling process.
>>
>>I would suggests/availability/connectivity/
>>
>>"availability" has many more rigorous definitions than the
>>test pattern used here.
>>
>>A minor concern:
>>It seems that the length of the test signal will influence
>>the delay measurement, the simple serialization time for bits
>>in the first packet of the signal, which it seems could be a
>>Jumbo packet. This should be mentioned as it is applicable as
>>a potential source of error for all the metrics. I realize this may
>>be negligible on high speed interfaces using a single packet for
>>the test signal - but they've left the option for long test
>>signals. There is clear motivation to use small packets from a
>>performance-bias perspective.
>>
>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>>In recent news, the Performance Metrics Directorate has been formed
>>in the OPS area, and we review drafts when WG chairs request.
>>As PMDir Admin, I'd be glad to ask for a review volunteer.
>>Let me know.
>>
>>We usually try to do early review of WG doc candidates rather
>>than WG Last Call, simply because the feedback might be extensive.
>>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html
>>
>>hope this helps,
>>Al
>
>_______________________________________________
>CCAMP mailing list
>CCAMP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email