[ippm] Re: Working group last call for Quality of Outcome (draft-ietf-ippm-qoo)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Apologies for fooding your mailboxes. I have one more note on the draft.

   - "Mean" and "average" are used in the document almost equal number of
   times. However, RFC 6049 uses only "mean" in reference to composable
   spatial performance metric. When I look in a dictionary (I am not native
   English speaker and I need a dictionary from time to time), I see that
   "mean" has more specific interpretation, especially in the field of
   statistics, while "average", although being interpreted as "mean" might
   have other interpretations. Thus my question: Are these terms used in the
   document interchangeably or do they carry different meanings, i.e., metrics
   are calculated differently?

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 2:48 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Marcus, Authors, et al.,
> I read the draft and support its progress to publication. I have several
> notes and will appreciate your consideration:
>
>    - In the Introduction. When stressing composability of the Quality
>    Attenuation, consider adding an informational reference to, for example, RFC
>    6049 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6049>. (Yes, there's a
>    reference in Section 2.2 Requirements)
>    -  "Accuracy" and "precision" are used in the document extensively,
>    sometimes even in the same sentence. In general, accuracy can be
>    interpreted as precision. Do you use a different interpretation in the
>    document? If that is the case, providing that in the document will help a
>    reader. Otherwise, consider adding a note that "accuracy" and "precision"
>    are used in the text interchangeably and avoid "accuracy and precision" by
>    removing one.
>    - Furthermore, an explanation of what value is considered as the
>    Ground Truth and is being reflected with some accuracy/precision by
>    measurements, would be helpful to a reader.
>    - A nit. I think that we use "Quality Attenuation" as a term. In that
>    case, it must be uppercased throughout the document.
>    - I don't think that applications or protocols act on their own will:
>
> Applications and the underlying networking protocols make separate
> optimizations ...
>
>
>    - In the Introduction s/allow for/allows for/
>    - In the Motivation s/i unattainable/is unattainable/
>    - In Requirements, consider s/applications will work well/an
>    application will work well/
>    - I wonder what is the significance of using '*' in the enumerated
>    list?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:42 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello IPPM,
>>
>>
>>
>> This email initiates the working group last call for Quality of Outcome
>> (draft-ietf-ippm-qoo).
>>
>>
>>
>> The current version of the document can be found here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo/
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo-03.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review the document and reply to this email with any comments and
>> indicate whether you believe it is ready for publication.
>>
>> This WGLC will last for three weeks and end on *Thursday* *July 3, 2025*.
>>
>>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Marcus and Thomas
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>