Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <> Tue, 08 May 2012 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FCD11E80A0 for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.729
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ylOzZXZ1Anic for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF7511E809A for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q48FbjcV002345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 May 2012 10:37:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q48Fbi3G009449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 May 2012 10:37:45 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q48FbifO003819; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:37:44 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 10:42:57 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Morton <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on
Cc:, Wesley Eddy <>, General Area Review Team <>,,
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 15:37:51 -0000

On 05/08/2012 10:13 AM, Al Morton wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
> Thanks for your review, please see replies below.

Al: Thanks for indulging me.  Points worth spending one more iteration
on are below.

> I thought process *was* generic, but will try your suggested text.


> Is "operations" sufficiently generic?

I think so; the term "operations" existed in your original writeup
and I simply reused it.

> I think that might be the Loss CDF,

Ah, right.

> but this is the Delay CDF when Lost Packets are assigned delay = +infinity.


>>     Nits:
>>     - S1: While characterizing the main audience, I am not sure what
>>     "consumer" means --- is it synonymous with "user"? And if so, I
>>     think that replacing consumer with user may be better. If these
>>     terms are not synonymous, then please provide a definition (even a
>>     loose one) of what a consumer is.
> "user" is too vague and also has a strong precedent in the computer
> networking context - we can add an adjective:
> s/consumer/report consumer/

I tried to re-read the sentences with s/consumer/report consumer/, but
I must admit that I am none the wiser.  Maybe s/consumer/audience/?

>>     - S3.1, seems like a grammatical error in the sentence:
>>     "We have calculated a waiting time above that should be sufficient
>>     to differentiate between packets that are truly lost or have long
>>     finite delays under general measurement circumstances, 51 seconds."
>>     Probably better to rephrase as:
>>     "We have calculated that under general measurement circumstances,
>>     51 seconds is an appropriate length of time to differentiate between
>>     packets that are truly lost from packets that are experiencing
>>     long finite delays."
> My grammar-checker accepted a slightly revised version,
> with s/above/in section 4.1.1/

The original sentence seems odd --- the object of the calculated waiting
time (51 seconds) appears at the end of the sentence.  By the time the
reader gets to the ", 51 seconds", he or she may have lost the context
of why 51 seconds is important.

>>     - S5.1.2: In Figure 3, I would suggest using "+Inf" instead of
>>     "+o0" to denote infinity. It took me a while to figure out that
>>     the latter is an ASCII approximation to infinity.
> So far, everybody else got it...

OK, no problem.  Please do retain the original text.

Thank you for your time, Al!

- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,} /