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

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,
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:
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.

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
>