IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss-01.txt

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 07 October 2010 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 1CAC23A6F62 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.280, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 DR3AICsw3oaO for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FE03A7116 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1286460821!27383733!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
Received: (qmail 10425 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2010 14:13:42 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Oct 2010 14:13:42 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o97ED61t020561 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:13:06 -0400
Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o97ED3DK020503 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:13:03 -0400
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o97EDcWZ017710 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:13:38 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o97EDabS017704 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:13:36 -0500
Message-Id: <201010071413.o97EDabS017704@klpd017.kcdc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (ds135-16-251-236.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.236](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101007141336gw100ei1mfe>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:13:36 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.236]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:14:00 -0400
To: Barry Constantine <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE38BA5B6E3F@MILEXCH1.ds.jds u.net>
References: <201010062111.o96LB99k008364@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> <94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE38BA5B6E3F@MILEXCH1.ds.jdsu.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss-01.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, 07 Oct 2010 14:12:42 -0000

Hi Barry,

At 09:23 AM 10/7/2010, Barry Constantine wrote:
>I reviewed the document and have one comment / question.
>
>Should this draft discuss implications of packet re-ordering to 
>round trip loss metrics (in the context of RFC4737)?

I think so, there are certainly implications to the return path
sampling process if the reordering occurs in the forward direction,
and the Src and Dst sequence numbers will not line-up, even if there
is no loss concurrent with the reordering...

Thanks for your review.  I'll try to update this again before the
meeting.  If I've overlooked some implications, let me know...

Would you support this as a chartered WG item?

Al

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email