Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 21:14 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885911A1B12 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:14:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuhqCqgOV675 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785491A6EF1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2AF120B15; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:28:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE12F042B; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:14:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:14:26 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>, "ippm@wjcerveny.com" <ippm@wjcerveny.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:14:23 -0500
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00
Thread-Index: AdApyLUzOrAm1iNQRqu8LIjps0K7OgAhUu4gA9ebSZA=
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D873E25C1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <F74FA593-0784-47F8-BE68-09AF1C202C54@wjcerveny.com> <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50439BD1A13@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50439BD1A13@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D873E25C1NJFPSRVEXG0rese_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/YsEuFN1TFHnq8L1OC8Ekn_TsnOE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis@tools.ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:14:32 -0000
Hi Rüdiger, Thanks for your review and comments (again). This is one of several drafts where I'm taking your advice and updating the term "precedence". The WGLC closed last week, so I've updated both drafts, including several comments from original author (and IPPM WG co-chair) Guy Almes, and a few typos/editorial points. regards, Al From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 7:41 AM To: ippm@wjcerveny.com; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: AW: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00 Bill, Al thanks. both drafts read good and I hope they will get RFC's soon. I however missed one QoS related point during an earlier review I made: 3.6 Methodologies: As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size, precedence). If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6. 3.8.1. Type-P . . .The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes. . . If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6. And the same comment also relates to draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00: 2.6 Methodologies: As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size, precedence). If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6. 2.8.1 Type-P . . The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes... If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6. And one nit: 7. RFC 2680 bis ...9. No content. Otherwise my comment is go ahead with both drafts. Regards, Ruediger Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 16:52 An: ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> Betreff: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00 As discussed at the IETF meeting, drafts draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 (A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM) and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00 (A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM) are ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC). As such, these documents will be in WGLC until Friday, January 23, 2014. Please send comments to ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>, including statements that you've reviewed the document and are okay with sending it up to the IESG for publication. For those new to IETF process, the WGLC process is discussed at: - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-7.4 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6174#section-4.2.7 Basic information on the documents is below. Title : A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM Authors : Guy Almes Sunil Kalidindi Matt Zekauskas Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2014-10-23 Abstract: This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 Title : A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM Authors : Guy Almes Sunil Kalidindi Matt Zekauskas Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2014-10-23 Abstract: This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00 Regards, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG Co-chair
- [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and d… Bill Cerveny
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 a… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)