Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

I agree that the title change helps to clarify the situation,
but I also accept Steve's offer to remove the non-Ericsson
idea from the text, specifically the "Padding Length" feature.
(The single sentence or Appendix within the document would contradict
the title, and again cause confusion.)

regards,
Al


At 11:02 AM 4/3/2012, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>On 4/2/2012 12:04 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >>>> The authors published -value-added-octets with a WG document 
> filename(which confuses things, it has not represented WG consensus 
> at   any stage)
> >
> > My take on it is that it is OK for an Informational RFC: a subset 
> did the work, the entire WG was asked to review the write-up.
> >
>
>
>In similar cases, the document title (not to be confused with
>the filename) has clearly specified whose work it reflects.
>For instance, the document title is currently:
>"TWAMP Value-Added Octets"
>it could be something like:
>"Ericsson's TWAMP Value-Added Octets"
>
>I think that would be more clear for the record, rather than
>messing with the filename, which disappears from view once it's
>published as an RFC.
>
>
> >>>> The authors modified the draft to adopt the function of 
> asymmetrical packet size test capability and possibly other 
> functions identified in the problem statement draft.
> >
> > The only field we added in 03 is Desired Reverse Padding Length. 
> We showed a prototype @ IETF-80, people came up with suggestions, 
> we showed that our prototype could be extended.
> >
> >>>> The authors now claim to have simplified their protocol, after 
> discounting the WG's comments on the complexity of their approach 
> for about a year.
> >
> > The only field we removed in 03 is the Sender Discriminator since 
> it is not specifically related to capacity measurements. Sender 
> Discriminator looked like a good idea at the time @ IETF80 but then 
> wasn't used during our demo and is now dropped.
>
>
>To address the comments about confusion as to which parts
>reflect the pre-WG activity, and which parts have been
>incorporated after IPPM WG feedback, it might make sense
>to just have a small bit of text in section 1 to say that
>it started as an Ericsson project, but currently incorporates
>some feedback from the IPPM working group.  This would, I
>think, enhance the paragraph currently right before Section 1.1.
>
>You might list the things that reflect that feedback (e.g. the
>desired reverse padding length and removal of sender
>discriminator) an an appendix or something, if you want to be
>ultra-clear.
>
>--
>Wes Eddy
>MTI Systems