Re: [ippm] Re-WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

"MORTON JR., AL" <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F52D3A2F28 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Nlyw6i41QDeO for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 D93C03A2F20 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13QKhq2D037539; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:47:22 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 38636ea9na-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:47:21 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 13QKlKuE013003; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:47:21 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [135.47.91.189]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 13QKlIKV012966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:47:18 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 2D3F240145A4; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:47:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.116]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id CEC6240145A3; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:47:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.115) by GAALPA1MSGEX1DC.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.4; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:46:59 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.115]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1DB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.115]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.008; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:46:59 -0400
From: "MORTON JR., AL" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
CC: "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Re-WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method
Thread-Index: AQHXLZTx4ZQM7l14jkyNuBbNXxLZzKrHn7kA//+/CcA=
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:46:59 +0000
Message-ID: <e8112773fbe6493eb00b20922f5884ae@att.com>
References: <0B497121-1EA9-4963-8F0C-7F55502447FE@apple.com> <7BC0ADB5-3928-46B6-8715-618D3F589241@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BC0ADB5-3928-46B6-8715-618D3F589241@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.254.52]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 819C87E311421916EBE62F140A2DE7EF4B8BC69184A8B73975BDC64DF83D3EFE2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e8112773fbe6493eb00b20922f5884aeattcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: L2yxEDmvCQ__0-MAXc7nPMJFjKFKP1ha
X-Proofpoint-GUID: L2yxEDmvCQ__0-MAXc7nPMJFjKFKP1ha
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-26_09:2021-04-26, 2021-04-26 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104260159
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/8RhgqgOMsrEl7rHMCr2cK_VPZQY>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Re-WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:47:28 -0000

Hi Tommy,
Ruediger included many editorial comments in his reply to WGLC.
I will resolve his comments tonight, or ASAP, and you will see version 10 very soon.
Al

From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 4:37 PM
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Re-WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Thanks for your input, all! We will be progressing this document back up to the IESG.

@Martin, can you take the document from here for another round of evaluation?

Best,
Tommy


On Apr 9, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Hello IPPM,

This email starts a short re-working group last call for the revisions to draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method. During IESG review, there were several DISCUSS positions that led to refinements in the document.

The current version, -09, can be found here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-09__;!!BhdT!w3S8ST0i-xIpu9EHfa9bRFjG9SmAnUXZgZz4KaP3YMYo-lDu7Fy6Dybyk9cH$>

You can find a diff between -06 and -09 here:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06&url2=draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06&url2=draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-09__;!!BhdT!w3S8ST0i-xIpu9EHfa9bRFjG9SmAnUXZgZz4KaP3YMYo-lDu7Fy6D6fbWxSI$>

I’d suggest focusing your reviews on these changes.

Please provide feedback on whether or not you believe these changes are ready for re-publication to the IESG by Monday, April 26.

Best,
Tommy
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!BhdT!w3S8ST0i-xIpu9EHfa9bRFjG9SmAnUXZgZz4KaP3YMYo-lDu7Fy6Dw79LqMo$>