Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

Barry Constantine <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860F73A68CB for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJUpMuWCQJJs for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B14333A6868 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([209.36.247.245]) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTIjrW1e8DCyBdtrRcDJ0RXYPCCjjKg/g@postini.com; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:12:46 PDT
Received: from milexhtca2.ds.jdsu.net ([10.75.2.122]) by Outbound2.jdsu.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:04:07 -0700
Received: from MILEXCH1.ds.jdsu.net ([fe80::6444:f010:6d40:bdb]) by milexhtca2.ds.jdsu.net ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:04:07 -0700
From: Barry Constantine <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com>
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:04:06 -0700
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt
Thread-Index: ActQIXpiZtye5LRtRF2oYsU/yTg/cQABlVDQ
Message-ID: <94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE38BA05A652@MILEXCH1.ds.jdsu.net>
References: <4C7CBBFD.1030402@ripe.net> <4C88DE66.3010804@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C88DE66.3010804@ripe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2010 14:04:07.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[DEA987B0:01CB5027]
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:12:22 -0000

Very good comments, Henk I will them all to the next draft.

Thanks again,

Barry

 

Principal Member of Technical Staff

 

JDSU Communication Test (formerly Acterna)

Emerging Markets and Technology Research         

One Milestone Center Court                              

Germantown, MD 20876                                         

(W) 240-404-2227                                                

(C) 301-325-7069

-----Original Message-----
From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:17 AM
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

Hi Barry and others,

> This is a Working Group Last Call for the draft:
> 
>     TCP Throughput Testing Methodology
>     draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

Details, as a participant, not WG chair.

1. Introduction: I think the first paragraph has to come after the 1st
   sentence of the 2nd one.  TCP testing is useful in itself, turn-up
   testing is an use case.

2. Section 2: "Some specific goals".  Remove some, either you list all
   goals or you explicitely state which goals are omitted.

3. Section 2.2.  With this definition, tcp efficiency can become <0%,
   which is hard to interpret.  (Suppose all bytes are resent twice,
   admittedly a strange case).  Work-around: if <0, make it 0.  (The
   connection is not useful anyway).

4. Section 3, item #2.  For Round Trip, put in a reference to the RFC
   on 2-way delay.  If this is clear, then 2 results from different
   vendors will be more comparable.

5. Section 3.2.2.  I think we should either select one or al least
   make it a MUST that this is reported.  Otherwise it will be hard to
   compare results.

6. Section 6: Drop the first paragraph. "The author" is undefined with
   4 authors.

I already sent you a couple of spelling errors.

Henk


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm