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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 8346C1A883B; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 B-MprI5iLXU9; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7AD1A875C; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2487312144E; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:48:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D302FE03AF; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:31:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:35:20 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:33:08 -0500
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+WfHVhbLMbgZbz3qR
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8549394D@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <20141208144319.25925.72497.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141208144319.25925.72497.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pel4wRRv11ZiOcHR3FOyu2zRKgs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 07:01:54 -0800
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:35:28 -0000

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.