[ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-03.txt

Chair hat off...

1.1:
I think we should copy over the additional 2119 text from the other 
documents.  e.g. from 2680:

>    Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words
>    are used in this document for similar reasons.  They are used to
>    ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations
>    are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could
>    perturb the network.

2.4,2.5:
When talking about the IP headers not being identical, can we be more 
precise?  We'd like src,dst,proto (and I suppose identification in v4); 
is it simply TTL and the checksum that can change?

2.5: in talking about "clocks do have to be synchronized" can we give a 
bound?  I don't think it's as stringent as with one-way delay...

2.6,2.7,2.8: The references to 2680 are strong here (even before, but 
especially here), and I think that warrants 2680 being a normative 
reference (it's listed as non-normative in this draft).

5.1,5.2: I would re-word to remove the (somewhat informal) hash mark, 
and at least in 5.1, the parens don't balance.

e.g., 5.1: "(In other words, (number of packets received)/(number of 
packets sent but not lost).)"

5.2: "(In other words, (number of duplicated packets)/(number of packets 
sent but not lost).)."

or even with an ascii-art flair:
(In other words:

          number of duplicated packets
          ----------------------------------
          number of packets sent but not lost
)

refs:
The normative ref to 2680, already noted.

There must be better Y.1450 reference text.  I'm sure I can find it, but 
am rushing right now...

perhaps more before the last call close too,

--Matt

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm