Re: [ippm] Review of: draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-12.txt

> Dan Romascanu (new OPS AD) asked on MIB Doctors list for review
> of this document, since it is on IESG agenda for April 27th.
> 
> So I reviewed the document.
> 
> Looks pretty good.
> 
> I have one question that maybe the authors or other WG members can answer
> for me and that is:
> 
>   In section 4.5, it seems to allow for using msg sequence numbers OR 
>   units of time (without even having defined what the unit is).
> 
> So I wonder how this definitions specifies an exact metric. The metric would
> not be comparable from one to the other measurement if one of them uses
> msg sequence numbers, while the other uses "units of time". Even if two of
> them use "units of time" but different units (e.g. micro seconds vs milliseconds)
> even then they would not be comparable.
> 
> Was it not the goal of IPPM to define EXACT metrics, so that results of
> two different tests/measurments could be compared?

I thought we agree to get rid of the "units of time" notion in that it
makes it either damn hard or impossible for the receiver to know what is
expected (as opposed to a sequence number, which makes it trivial).

allman