Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Thanks for getting the document to the finish line. I support advancing the document – but noticed a couple of nits while reading through the -03 version of draft (see below).

Cheers, Frank

A few nits:

* Section 1: [copycat][copycat] mentioned twice
* Notation: Would it make sense to use a notation which is more Latex-style, e.g. use dt_n, dt_n+1 instead of dtn,dtn+1. Initially I got a bit confused because the dtn wasn’t defined in section 4, whereas dt was.
* Notation: Would it make sense to use a different character that “I” for the duration, because “I” can easily be confused with (me, myself)? E.g. section 8 says: “The duration of a test, I, MUST be constrained in a production network, since this is an active test method and it will likely cause congestion on the Src to Dst host path during a test.”.. and at first glimpse, I was wondering why I should be constrained in a production network :-).
* Section 5.3: IMHO it would be useful to add a sentence / stress the fact, that the definition of “IP Layer Capacity” is always wrt/ particular endpoints, i.e. E2E – rather than that of a channel between endpoints. I.e. the capacity of the channel between endpoints could be lower (in case e.g. compression is used) than the capacity between endpoints. Another place to put this discussion could be section 8.3.
* Section 5.4: Shouldn’t the text say [T0, T0+I]? T0 is defined in section 4, T is not. (There are several occurrences of T in the document)
* Section 6.3: Replace “[see section Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions below]” with a proper reference
* Section 6.3: What are “Standard Formed packets”? Could we add a reference?

* Section 6.5: Line break in “Maximum_C(T,I,PM)”

* Section 6.6: Does one Megabit consist of 1048576 bits or 1000000 bits?

* Section 8.1: If I understand things correctly, the examples given here refer to Mbps as a unit, i.e. Rx+10 would mean Rx+10Mbps. Correct? Is there a way to future proof these numbers and methods: What is Mbps might be Gbps in 10 years? E.g. we could consider defining those formulas in relation to the nominal interface speeds of the Src and Dst. Relative numbers might be better than absolute values, e.g. Rx-30: How would we know that we can always reduce the rate by 30 Mbps?

* Section 8.4: Empty bullet

* Section 10.: How about adding a requirement that the identity and integrity of Src and Dst should be checked and confirmed? That way we ensure that we indeed measure Src to Dst  and not to some MIM “friendly” proxy that would give me the impression of stellar IP layer capacity...

From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Sent: Samstag, 29. August 2020 01:53
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>; IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Hi Tommy,
Thanks for sending the reminder!
I support this as an author of course,
Al

From: Tommy Pauly [mailto:tpauly@apple.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 6:35 PM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>) <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com<mailto:acm@research.att.com>>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Hi IPPM,

A reminder that our WGLC is ending next week for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method. Please take a moment to review the document!

Thanks,
Tommy

On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:31 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com<mailto:acm@research.att.com>> wrote:

Thanks Tommy and Ian!

While updating a few references this week, I noticed that the 02 draft had no Security Considerations Section.  That won’t do!

The co-authors came together and supplied new text for the Section in version 03, posted minutes ago. Please consider version 03 of the draft during WGLC.  Thank you IPPM.

For the co-authors,
Al

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf..org] On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:21 PM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>) <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Hello IPPM,

As discussed at IETF 108, draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method is stable, and the group felt it is ready for Working Group Last Call.

The latest version can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-02<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dcapacity-2Dmetric-2Dmethod-2D02&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=SIvlMcMEEzV1Wv8tA8hftr1Fvi38_c2R6bgbotceIsU&s=WEcaTbukpUJlfOGrn8Lbw-jjrpTxRsPst6bsHPjjExE&e=>

The last call will end on Wednesday, September 2. Please reply to ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> with your reviews and comments, and indicate if you think the document is ready to progress!

Best,
Tommy & Ian
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=WhdjOJaLaKnkqCY9q-_CdCoH6_wwB1_QaV9FHk-qgNc&s=mMx6KKiG6xhHD9mZLMLJ70_AsL7gk_GnydQqC14aB00&e=>