[ippm] Re: Working group last call for draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ruediger,
thank you for the suggested change. I accepted the latter option as:

The access rate metric and method of access rate measurement are out of the
scope of this document.

I attached the diff file highlighting all the updates we discussed during
the WG LC.

Best regards,
Greg

On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 12:40 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> the text of the rate measurement section is chosen very generic and
> informs the reader, that the functions supported by the draft “...conform
> to the requirements for measuring access rate..”
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html#name-rate-measurement
>
>
>
> In addition to other concerns, I note that the draft neither offers a
> discussion of an access rate metric nor a reference to one. I think,
> someone performing an access rate measurement by UDP transport needs to
> have a rough idea, what to do. The introduction of RFC 9097 offers a brief
> overview on these metrics an defines one itself, see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9097.html#name-introduction . I’d
> appreciate, if the draft offers one or more suitable references to an
> access rate metric or puts that topic out of scope.
>
>
>
> In the latter case, suggested text would be:
>
> The access rate metric and method of access rate measurement are out of
> scope of this document. The UDP Speed Test ([RFC9097
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html#RFC9097>]
> and [I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html#I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol>])
> also allows for the measurement of access bandwidth.
>
>
>
> That last sentence is part of the draft already, maybe the following reads
> better, if authors pick up:
>
> The access rate metric and method of access rate measurement are out of
> scope of this document. The UDP Speed Test ([RFC9097
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html#RFC9097>]
> and [I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html#I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol>])
> offers both.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ruediger
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2025 11:04 AM
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [ippm] Working group last call for
> draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
>
>
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
>
>
> This email initiates the working group last call for Performance
> Measurement with Asymmetrical Traffic Using STAMP
> (draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts).
>
>
>
> The current version of the document can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-05.html
>
>
>
> Please review the document and reply to this email with any comments and
> indicate whether you believe it is ready for publication. This WGLC will
> last for three weeks and end on *May 1, 2025*.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Marcus and Thomas
>
>
>