Re: [ippm] Request for reviews of draft-ietf-ippm-pam

Hi Greg,

Thanks for getting back to me.Your proposed changes all look good.
I don't think using decamilliseconds makes the text hard to understand, so
I take that back.

Cheers,
Bjørn

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 02:53, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bjørn,
> thank you for your comments and suggestions. Will use them in the next
> version of the draft. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 1:20 AM Bjørn Ivar Teigen <bjorn@domos.no> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marcus, IPPM,
>>
>> I've read the document. My overall impression is very good. I did find a
>> few minor nits:
>>
>> Introduction: Essentially, the absence of what is, in other contexts, is
>> called a defect. (One too many "is" in this sentence?)
>>
> GIM>> Perhaps minor editorial update:
> OLD TEXT:
>    Essentially, the
>    absence of what is, in other contexts, is called a defect.
> NEW TEXT:
>    The absence of such capacity in other contexts is called a defect.
> WDYT?
>
>> Section 3.1: decamillisecond is an odd choice of unit.
>>
> GIM>> It is used as an example. What would you suggest, perhaps
> nanosecond?
>
>> Section 3.1: "defitions" should be definitions
>> Section 3.2: "Time since the last SVI (e.g., since last violated ms,
>> since last violated second)" should be "Time since the last SVI (e.g.,
>> since last severely violated ms, since last severely violated second)"
>>
> GIM>> Thank you, agree.
>
>> Section 4 claims, "The definition of histogram metrics is for further
>> study (see section 6)", but there is no discussion of this in section 6
>>
> GIM>> Good catch, thank you. Would the following re-wording make it
> clearer:
> OLD TEXT:
>    The definition of histogram metrics is for further study
>    (see Section 6).
> NEW TEXT:
>     The definition of histogram metrics is outside the scope
>      of this document but could be considered for future work
>      along with topics discussed in Section 6.
>
>
>>
>> I find the contribution interesting and useful and will be following this
>> work in the future.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bjørn
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 17:08, Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
>> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi IPPM,
>>>
>>> During the IPPM session at IETF 116 the authors of  draft-ietf-ippm-pam
>>> expressed that they believe the document is ready for WGLC.
>>>
>>> However, since this  document was adopted quite recently we’d like to
>>> ask the WG to take some time to read the document and provide feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In response to this mail, please indicate whether you’ve read the
>>> document along with any feedback you might have.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this is not an official working group last call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The document can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HTML version:
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-pam-01.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Bjørn Ivar Teigen, Ph.D.
>> Head of Research
>> +47 47335952 | bjorn@domos.ai | www.domos.ai
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Bjørn Ivar Teigen, Ph.D.
Head of Research
+47 47335952 | bjorn@domos.ai | www.domos.ai