[ippm] AD review for the 2679 test plan/results document
Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 02:40 UTC
Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 9D1EF11E8096 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjUBV5kG-C5P for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr12.networksolutionsemail.com (omr12.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A7821F869A for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr12.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4G2e8jZ017933 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:40:08 -0400
Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [69.81.143.202] ([69.81.143.202:50062] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 0E/3F-31453-88313BF4; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:40:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4FB3137C.8010105@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:39:56 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ippm] AD review for the 2679 test plan/results document
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 16 May 2012 02:40:11 -0000
Hi, even though this looks like a lot of comments, I found the draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 document to overall be a very good and useful document. I think most of my AD review comments are actually easy to address, but due to the volume of them, a revised I-D is really needed before taking this to IETF Last Call and the IESG: - suggest changing: "The IETF (IP Performance Metrics working group, IPPM)" to: "The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group" - the reference to draft-bradner in the first sentence of the introduction is odd; I would expect it to just show up as "[draft-bradner-metricstest]" and not have the part that says "ref to work in progress" or the trailing dash on it - in the last paragraph of section 1, a space is missing prior to the reference to RFC 5657 - in the last paragraph of section 1: "procedures, results" should be: "procedures, and results" - in section 2, references to RFC 6576 should replace the ones to the earlier I-D, and this section should either be cut-down in content or eliminated as it attmpts to include too much verbatim from the other document that can simply be cited instead - in section 3, "WIPM" is not expanded and doesn't have a citation; I don't expect all other readers to necessarily know what this is - in paragraph 2 of section 3, "periodic" is uncapitalized, even though it was capitalized in the prior paragraph - the URLs for Fedora in section 3 should probably be real informative references rather than URLs embedded in square brackets - in section 3, ""mii-tool"when" should be: ""mii-tool" when" if there's really even a need to mention the command by name; I think it's sufficient to say that the links were found to be in half-duplex without mentioning mii-tool specifically - section 3 mentions 3 packet sizes that were used (64, 340, and 500 bytes); was there any reason these specific numbers were picked? Was there any reason to avoid larger packets that might have been interesting (e.g. ones that would be fragmented?) - in section 4.1, "Best Effort DCSP" should be: "Best Effort DSCP"? - Section 4.2 has some use of "Perfas" mixed with "Perfas+" in other places; one should be used consistently - Section 5 seems to include a paraphrase of what's in RFC 6576 Section 3.1, without citing it? - reference to the metrictest document can be updated to point to RFC 6576 - in Section 6.1.4, "out lier" should be "outlier" - Section 6.1.5 has this note: >>>> To be provided: >>>> Overall statement about Correction Factors w.r.t. section 5 limits. >>>> Appendix with more details ??? -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems