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

Gregory Mirsky <> Mon, 12 January 2015 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A77B1ACD18; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:29:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5NXsvnfdqlm1; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C624A1A802F; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:29:54 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-db-54b3b4597290
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A7.B7.25146.954B3B45; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:47:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:29:48 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AdAS9WIrpiIcKydeQDi+WfHVhbLMbgZbz3qRAIwUDZA=
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:29:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiG7Uls0hBi9XsFhsPTaR0eLqq88s Fs82zmex6Hnwjtmit2kJswOrx8v+OYweS5b8ZApgiuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2H14J3vBFpmK PWsvszcw7hbvYuTkkBAwkbiwoZ0NwhaTuHBvPZDNxSEkcIRR4uS6FVDOckaJJcsuMoFUsQkY SbzY2MMOYosIBErcfLsFqIiDg1mgWOLGPlWQemGBdkaJRTNfs4M4IgIdjBJzvi1khmiwkrjx bhLYOhYBVYndvb2sIDavgK/EyfXzWCC2dTNKnG3tAEtwCoRIfHh3BKyBEei+76fWgF3BLCAu cevJfCaIuwUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWlNjXP50dol5HYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmSEWC0qcnPmE ZQKj2CwkY2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDlKi1PLctONDDcxAiPpmASb4w7GBZ8sDzEKcDAq8fAa nNgUIsSaWFZcmXuIUZqDRUmcN+LR+hAhgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjOZ/deSd E1gTXzqHzVt66rhaTaDLgf9pL/ZekbVftPTKz5LdpitZbyYrGPvdleRdsmSa5kuZxfv6Nj36 FZNvW1msOy1lvYF1QsIOp4bEExqP9XwU/ulUr7t8K16v+9mW63XlN97fP7q9/GeltMYVC/bH ZZUasatWND4M9Q2MEyrKTr/wIqf6rxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAMMWMNSFAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:29:57 -0000

Dear Al, et. al,
thank you for the detailed explanation of rationale not to address my comments. I see that we have different interpretation of the decision reached by the IPPM WG in meeting in Toronto. I strongly believe that limiting its scope to the Section 5 only results in technical inconsistencies throughout the document that I've pointed out in my comments. Thus, I propose, to apply WG decision from the meeting in Toronto to the document in its entirety and remove statements and assumptions that contradict WG decision reached then.


-----Original Message-----
From: ippm [] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC

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.


From: IETF-Announce [] On Behalf Of The IESG []
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:43 AM
To: IETF-Announce
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 mailing lists by 2014-12-22. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.


   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

IESG discussion can be tracked via

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

ippm mailing list