Re: [ippm] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02

Lars Eggert <> Tue, 12 July 2022 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37B5C14F728; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8_bY16KDRbwW; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928EEC14F719; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0D961D374B; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 23:19:22 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1657657164; bh=DM3iqlMGuTgIlJ65nz9heFJW6AkNegxdLSvThk/dtfk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=yyQ5ivF364A++6GDJf0aTDgqNznDfTC8Bu15vzgkcGcJbsx1lETJxJLktglcnkUWl wzMPwRf0Sn8Nyj2RdkJu3S3GBBgijYW1cSi4kLbII3LMmTNRpm1zYlbeFO9yws838M 0sXqt8VjltMlogd3Qcncn9BAGXDJ9UmhsZhs16eA=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1EE8184-3BFC-4B8D-A038-2C1E55ACC5B8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Lars Eggert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:19:16 -0700
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,,,
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
X-MailScanner-ID: E0D961D374B.A4CE9
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:19:39 -0000

Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review.


> On 2022-6-24, at 13:02, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2022-06-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-21
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-07-14
> Summary:
> Ready with a number of nits.  I found that the discussion of possible uses
> besides the core proposal to be somewhat distracting and perhaps detracts from
> the value of the basic proposal.
> Major issues:
> None.
> Minor issues:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract: s/It could be considered/According to the classification defined in
> RFC 7799, it could be considered/
> s1.1, para 1:s/overtaking./building on/; s/in the original/that was based on
> the original/
> s1.1, last para:  Delete.  The change log wil not be in the final document.
> s2, para 3: s/will have the same color/will have the same notional "color"/
> s3.1, para 6: s/shows how a flow looks like when it is split in traffic
> blocks/shows how a flow appears when it is split into traffic blocks/
> s3.1, second set of bullets:
> The problem is easier to solve for multicast traffic, where load-balancing is
> seldom used and static joins are frequently used to force traffic forwarding
> and replication.
> Is the term 'static joins' sufficiently well-known to not need a reference?
> s3.2.2, para1: s/statistic distribution/statistical distribution/
> s3.2.2, para2:  The term 'security time gap'  didn't seem obvious in this
> section: Between packets with the second marking, there should be a security
> time gap to avoid out-of-order issues and also to have a number of measurement
> packets that are rate independent.
> I suggest 'adequate time gap'.
> s4.1, para2: s/ number of involved nodes/number of nodes involved/
> s7, last para:  This paragraph is not future proof.  The two drafts referenced
> are not working group drafts and it is not clear if they will eventually become
> RFCs.   I would be inclined to omit the paragraph or at least reduce it to just
> refer to the IEEE work.  It could also be moved to an appendix.
> s8, para 2: Not an academic paper!  s/We used/The mechanisms described in this
> document use/
> s8, bullet 5: s/strictly related each other/strictly related to each other/
> s8, bullet 7: Suggest replacing text with:
> Verification: the methodology  has been tested and deployed experimentally in
> both lab and operational network scenarios performing packet loss and delay
> measurements on traffic patterns created by traffic generators together with
> precision test instruents and network emiulators.
> s8, bullet 11:  Singleton whats????
> s8, bullet 12:  "currently, the main parameter of the method is...."   Once
> this becomes an RFC the parameters are set in stone - 'currently' is not a good
> way of describing that state. Also the bullet asks about 'parameters'.  If
> there is just one parameter say that.  If there are others they need to be
> described here.
> --
> last-call mailing list