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

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ignacio,

please see replies below,

Al, for the co-authors

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:57 AM
> To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method
> 
> Hi Tommy,
> 
> I think this draft is useful, and it represents some methods that are used
> nowadays. I have a couple of comments:
> 
> 1_ The equation in section 5.3 does not consider times spending on
> transmitting (or I did not see it clearly). It is true that for some
> measurements, the destination is close to the source, and these times are
> tiny.
[acm] 
The definition of T says that this equation corresponds to measurement at the destination, making the rate measurements much simpler/more practical. I have added some clarifications in the definitions of T, I, and dt to make this more clear.

> 2_ A recommendation about the minimum time during the process could be
> useful to overcome some traffic shapers operation.
[acm] 
We have recommended several default times for key parameters. It's more tricky to recommend minimums without knowing more deployment details. I don't think we can "overcome some traffic shapers operation", or want to do it. We want to measure at reasonable time-frames.

> 3_ 3_ For the "Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions" sections, I
> suggest to include the "median," according to the observations in draft-
> ietf-ippm-route-10.
[acm] 
Ok

> 
> Many thanks to the authors for their work.
[acm] 
Thanks for your re-review and comments (noting that you commented on the Individual Draft last year).


> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 	J. Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> Dr. Ing. José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
> CONICET and Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Buenos Aires
> Av. Paseo Colón 850 - C1063ACV - Buenos Aires - Argentina
> [phone] / 5285 0705
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__cnet.fi.uba.ar_ignacio.alvarez-2Dhamelin_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=HGcCacbF-
> cOYzrXhe4od_eSTP4dG7KLAZwI_owkTBV0&s=DfeP2Q3ym7BiQlqJQaaPSHi_UBVGEOi3QrBhL
> VspmiQ&e=
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> > On 28 Aug 2020, at 19:34, Tommy Pauly
> <tpauly=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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)
> <[e-mail]> 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 ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
> >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dcapacity-2Dmetric-2Dmethod-
> 2D02&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-
> e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=HGcCacbF-
> cOYzrXhe4od_eSTP4dG7KLAZwI_owkTBV0&s=BCaAJgx9uak_j2yvR1gRA-
> 4QPkgFs62IW_8oahO5F7M&e=
> >>
> >> The last call will end on Wednesday, September 2. Please reply to
> [e-mail] with your reviews and comments, and indicate if you think
> the document is ready to progress!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Tommy & Ian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ippm mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=HGcCacbF-
> cOYzrXhe4od_eSTP4dG7KLAZwI_owkTBV0&s=KyLZuLZlcdue8OhCgk9UZg4xWS79k3NZ81-
> CIUDLyWo&e=
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=HGcCacbF-
> cOYzrXhe4od_eSTP4dG7KLAZwI_owkTBV0&s=KyLZuLZlcdue8OhCgk9UZg4xWS79k3NZ81-
> CIUDLyWo&e=