[ippm] [Errata Rejected] RFC8912 (6762)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 30 November 2021 23:17 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 07B563A0474; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:17:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 771xXDRyWtUj; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 488E53A046E; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 499) id 30D342B2B0; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:17:01 -0800 (PST)
To: nmalykh@ieee.org, acmorton@att.com, marcelo@it.uc3m.es, philip.eardley@bt.com, kld@att.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20211130231701.30D342B2B0@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:17:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/B2nN22cKT_QM_iB4Pvrp6czG-nk>
Subject: [ippm] [Errata Rejected] RFC8912 (6762)
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: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:17:06 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8912, "Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6762 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org> Date Reported: 2021-11-30 Rejected by: Martin Duke (IESG) Section: 10.1.4 Original Text ------------- RTLoss: This metric assesses the estimated loss count for TCP packets constituting a single connection, exchanged between two hosts. We consider the measurement of round-trip delay based on a single OP [RFC7011] somewhere in the network. The output is the estimated loss count for the measurement interval. Corrected Text -------------- RTLoss: This metric assesses the estimated loss count for TCP packets constituting a single connection, exchanged between two hosts. We consider the measurement of loss count based on a single OP [RFC7011] somewhere in the network. The output is the estimated loss count for the measurement interval. Notes ----- This is where loss count is measured, not round-trip delay. --VERIFIER NOTES-- >From Al Morton: Sorry, but the original text is correct. In this case we have a RT loss *estimate* conducted in the context of (and using the same packets as) the RT Delay measurements described for TCP. We considered this text carefully before publication. -------------------------------------- RFC8912 (draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-16) -------------------------------------- Title : Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries Publication Date : November 2021 Author(s) : A. Morton, M. Bagnulo, P. Eardley, K. D'Souza Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [ippm] [Errata Rejected] RFC8912 (6762) RFC Errata System