[ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 23 October 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1B2120C06; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, ippm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.107.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157185231724.28314.17849634169462380907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:38:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/tFXkyhsORT-o4KrNm3iEjPgIfS8>
Subject: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 17:38:37 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for addressing my Discuss points!

A few final comments on the -09, though I don't think any response is needed
for any of them:

There's still some editing for grammar to do, but I will trust in the RFC Editor
for that.

Section 4.2's use of RFC 6038 as a reference for "the symmetrical size of test packets"
with no section reference is a bit surprising, though perhaps not objectionable.

Section 4.6 has changed the discussion of reflected packet size in STAMP/TWAMP
interop scenarios, from "STAMP Session-Reflector will use a symmetric size"
to "STAMP Session-Reflector will always transmit the base packet (i.e., not a
symmetric size)".  I will trust you that this is accurate, since I cannot confirm it myself.