Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 6:13 PM Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:39 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Will,
> > thank you for your expedient response. Yes, I agree with the text you propose for the update.
>
> No, thank you for pointing out the awkward phrasing. I have opened a
> PR against the draft
> (https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/pull/94)
> and will work with Stuart and Christoph to merge it once they concur.
>
> Thank you again!
> Will
>

Greg,

I just wanted to follow up and let you know that we merged the new
wording into the draft. Thank you again for bringing the awkward
phrasing to our attention!

Will

>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 12:07 PM Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the feedback. See below.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 2:49 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi, Marcus et al.,
> >> > my apologies for the belated response. I read the draft and found it well-written. Performance measurement under working conditions is certainly an essential tool in an operator's toolbox. I support progressing this work further. However, I find the antonym of responsiveness unresponsiveness,
> >>
> >> I agree -- I always thought it was quite a mouthful!
> >>
> >> > confusing. In my opinion, the degradation of service performance, i.e., an increase in latency, is reflected in lower RPM value. On the other hand, unresponsiveness is the inability to communicate altogether, the loss of all packets, and the RPM value should be 0. If my interpretation is correct, perhaps the following text in Abstract can be updated:
> >>
> >> I agree with that point. On further reading, I do see how it can
> >> clearly be misconstrued.
> >>
> >> > OLD TEXT:
> >> >    Our networks remain unresponsive, not from a lack of technical
> >> >    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
> >> >    deployment of its solutions.
> >> > NEW TEXT:
> >> >    Responsiveness of our networks remains suboptimal, not from a lack of technical
> >> >    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
> >> >    deployment of its solutions.
> >>
> >> Would you consider:
> >>
> >> Our network connections continue to suffer from an unacceptable amount
> >> of latency,
> >> not for a lack of technical solutions, but rather a lack of awareness
> >> of the problem and
> >> deployment of its solutions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you again for your comments!
> >> Will
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Greg
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:10 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hello IPPM,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This email starts a Working Group Last Call for " Responsiveness under Working Conditions”, draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness-03.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please review the document and send your comments in response to this email, along with whether you think the document is ready to progress.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please send your reviews and feedback by Friday, December 22.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> BR,
> >> >>
> >> >> Marcus & Tommy
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> ippm mailing list
> >> >> ippm@ietf.org
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > ippm mailing list
> >> > ippm@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm