[ippm] AD review for draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-07
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 10 July 2008 11:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ippm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3E03A69E0; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF003A6932 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjpnPeL-TLF1 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6925E3A68F0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m6ABwSDZ028833; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:59:03 -0500
Received: from vaebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.24]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:58:42 +0300
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:58:42 +0300
Received: from [192.168.255.2] ([10.241.184.208]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:58:41 +0300
Message-Id: <F36D9E3E-51A2-4266-9489-CF9373CAE981@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: ext Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <4874C028.3050805@ripe.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:58:33 +0300
References: <4874C028.3050805@ripe.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 11:58:42.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C193520:01C8E284]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] AD review for draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-07
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, I did my AD review during WGLC. On a technical level, this document is ready to be published. However, I'd still like to urge the authors to take the time to produce another revision that focuses on improving the writing and language. Some sections, especially the earlier ones, are quite difficult to follow due to awkward phrasings, grammar issues, and so on. Other sections are in much better shape, for example, Sections 7, 8, and much of 9 are very well written. The document would be much improved if other sections were of similar language quality. Although the RFC Editor would also fix some of these issues, I feel that this won't be quite sufficient in this case. Also note that this isn't a blocking issue. If the WG comes to consensus to request publication of this version as-is, I will bring it before the IESG in its current form. (But obviously I'd prefer an update.) Lars Detailed comments: Note: Most comments marked as nits below have been automatically flagged by review scripts - there may be some false positives in there. INTRODUCTION, paragraph 11: > The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group has standardized > metrics for measuring end-to-end performance between two points. Please rephrase to not talk about the IPPM WG - WGs are ephemeral and WG history is rarely relevant for a published RFC. (Also elsewhere in the document, e.g., the introduction, etc.) Section 1., paragraph 6: > [[RFC2679], [RFC2680], [RFC3393], [RFC3432]. Seven metrics are Nit: s/[[/[/ Section 1., paragraph 7: > methodologies. Each definion includes a specific section discussing Nit: s/definion/definition/ Section 1., paragraph 8: > increase results accucacy. These spatial metrics are: Nit: s/accucacy./accuracy./ Section 2.5., paragraph 1: > Points of interest are the hosts* (as per RFC2330 definition, that Why is there a * after hosts? Can't find a corresponding footnote. Section 2.7., paragraph 1: > Src are dT1, dT2,..., dTN, it can be say that a vector V with N Nit: s/it can be say/it can be said/ Section 2.8., paragraph 5: > Figure 3: Relation beween Singletons, vectors and matrix Nit: s/beween/between/ Section 3.3., paragraph 0: > 3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics Suggest to move this section into an appendix, because it's outside the scope of the proposed standard. Section 4., paragraph 3: > Methodology specificities are common to all the vectors defined and Nit: s/specificities/specifics/ Section 4.1., paragraph 1: > This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way- Delay > of the section 3 of [RFC2679]. When a parameter of this definition > is first used in this section, it will be tagged with a trailing > asterisk. "This" appears twice in the last section, which makes it ambigous. Do you mean that when the definitions from RFC2679 are used, they're marked with an asterisk? Section 4.1., paragraph 2: > Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2679] give requirements and applicability > statements for end-to-end one-way-delay measurements. They are > applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure. > Spatial one-way-delay measurement SHOULD be respectful of them, > especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and > reporting. Why isn't this a MUST? (Also, nit "be respectful of" is an awkward phrasing - just say "respect".) This also occurs elsewhere in the document. Section 4.4.1., paragraph 1: > Loss threshold is the centrality of any methodology because it Nit: awkward phrasing: "is the centrality of" - how about "is central to"? Section 4.4.1., paragraph 3: > depending on the consistency of the loss threshold among the points > of interest, a packet may be considered loss a one host but present Nit: s/loss a/lost at/ Section 4.4.1., paragraph 4: > deterministic: Has the path change? Does the packet arrive at Nit: s/change/changed/; s/Does/Did/; s/at/at the/ Section 2, paragraph 0: > o method1: Figure 5 andFigure 8 illustrate the method chosen: the Nit: s/andFigure/and Figure/ Section 9.4., paragraph 4: > o Hosts_serie: <H1, H2,..., Hn>, a list of points of interest; Nit: s/Hosts_serie:/Hosts_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 5: > o Delays_serie: <dT1,..., dTn> a list of delays; Nit: s/Delays_serie:/Delays_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 6: > o Losses_serie: <B1, B2, ..., Bi, ..., Bn>, a list of Boolean values Nit: s/Losses_serie:/Losses_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 7: > o Result_status_serie: a list of results status; Nit: s/Result_status_serie:/Result_status_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 10: > o Hosts_serie: not ordered for one-to-group; Nit: s/Hosts_serie:/Hosts_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 11: > o Delays_serie: apply only for delays and ipdv vector, not ordered Nit: s/Delays_serie:/Delays_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 12: > o Losses_serie: apply only for packets loss vector, not ordered for Nit: s/Losses_serie:/Losses_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 13: > o Result_status_serie; Nit: s/Result_status_serie;/Result_status_series;/ Section 9.4., paragraph 16: > o Delays_serie: apply only for delays and ipdv samples; Nit: s/Delays_serie:/Delays_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 17: > o Losses_serie: apply only for packets loss samples; Nit: s/Losses_serie:/Losses_series:/ Section 9.4., paragraph 18: > o Result_status_serie; Nit: s/Result_status_serie;/Result_status_series;/ Section 10.2., paragraph 1: > overload reference point ressources (network, network interfaces, Nit: s/ressources/resources/ Section 12., paragraph 1: > Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo are > designed to be registered in the IANA IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as > described in initial version of the registry [RFC4148] : Nit: s/Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo/Metrics defined in this memo/ _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] [Fwd: DRAFT WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-multi… Henk Uijterwaal
- [ippm] AD review for draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] [Fwd: DRAFT WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-m… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] [Fwd: DRAFT WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-m… Geib, Ruediger