Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351E71ACDE7; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jPsPdG1_0JY; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CE71ACDB7; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0CLkp8f051097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:46:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8549394D@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:46:51 -0600
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 442792011.452993-2f20ac4e546f9a449b9b73f9de63ea49
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <874F0905-001A-41FA-AFB6-AA4A6B4FB422@nostrum.com>
References: <20141208144319.25925.72497.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8549394D@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Hr02ml9a58YVA8izpdRcArMubf0>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 21:46:59 -0000

Hi,

This version addresses the concerns from my GEN-ART review. I agree that it's reasonable to skip the figure numbers with only two small figures.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jan 9, 2015, at 5:33 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben, Dan, Greg,
> 
> Version 09 of -ippm-rate-problem draft addresses your comments
> to great extent.
> 
> Although Ben's (GEN-ART) suggestion to clarify the figure in the Intro was
> adopted, it seems reasonable to leave out the Figure numbers 
> since the two figures are referenced one time each and they are
> only 3 lines high (so not likely to move far, if at all).
> 
> Dan's (OPS-DIR) comments have been addressed (following e-mail
> exchange) by inserting a new section on Operational Considerations
> where we have compromised on the text.
> 
> Greg's comments have been addressed to the extent possible without
> re-visiting the "Toronto compromise" which only involved section 5.
> Other comments cite WG agreements that have not actually been 
> discussed AFAIK, or refer to purely OPTIONAL features in the memo.
> 
> regards,
> Al
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: IETF-Announce [ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG [iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:43 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
> to consider the following document:
> - 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement'
>  <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> 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
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>   This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem statement for
>   test protocols to measure IP Performance Metrics.  The rate
>   measurement scenario has wide-spread attention of Internet access
>   subscribers and seemingly all industry players, including regulators.
>   Key test protocol aspects require the ability to control packet size
>   on the tested path and enable asymmetrical packet size testing in a
>   controller-responder architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
>