Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

[Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry and others,

> This is a Working Group Last Call for the draft:
> 
>     TCP Throughput Testing Methodology
>     draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

Details, as a participant, not WG chair.

1. Introduction: I think the first paragraph has to come after the 1st
   sentence of the 2nd one.  TCP testing is useful in itself, turn-up
   testing is an use case.

2. Section 2: "Some specific goals".  Remove some, either you list all
   goals or you explicitely state which goals are omitted.

3. Section 2.2.  With this definition, tcp efficiency can become <0%,
   which is hard to interpret.  (Suppose all bytes are resent twice,
   admittedly a strange case).  Work-around: if <0, make it 0.  (The
   connection is not useful anyway).

4. Section 3, item #2.  For Round Trip, put in a reference to the RFC
   on 2-way delay.  If this is clear, then 2 results from different
   vendors will be more comparable.

5. Section 3.2.2.  I think we should either select one or al least
   make it a MUST that this is reported.  Otherwise it will be hard to
   compare results.

6. Section 6: Drop the first paragraph. "The author" is undefined with
   4 authors.

I already sent you a couple of spelling errors.

Henk


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.