Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt

[Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>]

Yaakov, others,

> I object to progressing the draft in question at the present time,
> for at least 4 reasons.
> 
> 1) The new version clearly states :
>    This memo is the product of a working prototype. It does not
>    represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is
>    currently working on the problem statement and has not reached
>    consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics.
>    ...
>    This memo describes the protocol used in the current working
>    prototype implementation of the Value-added octets feature in the
>    Ericsson lab. The prototype has been tested in real network
>    environments. The conclusion from these tests is that the Value-added
>    octets feature is able to enable estimation of metrics such as
>    available path capacity in both the forward and reverse direction of
>    the network path.
> 
> This is the definition of an individual submission track document,
> not a document to be submitted to the IESG as a product of the IPPM WG.

I understand the problem.  The reason I asked for this to make
it a WG document is that I think the WG should review this document.  The
document describes a problem plus a prototype implementation of a solution.
I think it is good to have a good description of the prototype, that has
been reviewed by the entire WG for clarity/completeness/etc of the prototype,
even if the problem we ultimately have to solve is different or we may
decide on a completely different approach towards solving the problem.

So, what I hope the first paragraph ("This memo is ... metrics") says is
"somebody in the WG did an experiment, the WG saw that it solved something
close to an existing problem, the write-up of the experiment is clear").
If it doesn't then I've done something wrong :-)

> Furthermore, the document seems to be a candidate for an "experimental" RFC, 
> not an "informational" one.

I think I agree with Steve that "informational" is the best fit, but reading
 http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html suggests that "experimental"
might be a good choice either.  I don't think this matters too much at this
stage of the discussion though.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
                                          http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)