Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1713AFC0A7 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qrjFJTIpmqCF for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31DE3AFC09A for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-313cde344d4so794235a91.0 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1751147330; x=1751752130; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2JXPc672mydNqfoIotPxO7WFubn+u9wtrbhhKxySQAk=; b=SnvGNiDNpg5rk8l84YqjlXmBhkk9VKNkBWhOFJufXOLnUMCOSP1Apaazf6x7zeiTxn ONUuIfLlOJqE3dN8zpuKF9Dr4J4cCseDrt4uFlxn2WpuQ4OMIln0aXADJ/wxZbiZm7l8 YSVOT3ZepT5oxeK+1Ch2DMrZr4KnHdO/Flm/4bGocRgtYEnVgH6Mp8r0I+3sQh5l6BDp nigyzchsYv2V0ogLm//6iaj4naWxHtqjAufdXUKx6raCKE2VihxVhnSejnOAnmhkmpqa YTSxCIHzKsufI1A1SXeumqLgJDNkVXrDgNQEzmwm5jPNMOex8p/3wrKpU4S/g5TTLGiz Jeyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1751147330; x=1751752130; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=2JXPc672mydNqfoIotPxO7WFubn+u9wtrbhhKxySQAk=; b=mBOtXbCFxIkaUDNF7kTPbOSKf7JnK+fTMekSi7PQS4gJ934vwaLdRVuMFhvkrzaFUy QSQEgHoDzKB0NVArHepoSqw65g4ze+v/gB5cOVII6la9KBX1eSOlurZRUhUFRg1ieIsa YdKiiLr9IlNUzZ3wpTQZnxSF22B/TTihmEUMNtEKmtdaDuS2Xru5okLPXZe9018I+4zG t+ug+VathVQTC9SkDRzXq5694DAZaDSzG7LKRnz1pqay7mKw4p63POidxSPB9fBC3FJi U9RvIGzkMvm0K1hKkqsOM64M3xIwpq1XWealhmPzOiw2fDdpI8NQVdgtNtOzokyGaYQA I4Uw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyxckq3ukWKIxhZ9hFj1y7xwnm7FJWPQlbTFaeyz7WMfsycbAxy 2d3hnlA4prwi/pdSaSoQGF2YhdJMMhp6+SpQTjGKw6uEhoWjVJam2YWkcZtb8j5+iJeE613RwAp a1AeDErNp14tludDi9ZptAaUeOxqP6s6KF/dD X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsxEMNC+BB/poyTgncumrgLqTOuispnSpV12NDy8BMiJpWYnTN3BZRSQenlR46 Xn2/TL201Ok37zel+mMa3WJJjtBShfgbxWmjCcudmss8VHmFoqrP5Wx+XRkqT4Q99Ep70b2zbAU zjfmu9oEUzZud218aBWG4BhLJxB37Bklxgxl6UqRXLpU8+Flq6k1yQm3k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGXZ3n9ziKJPnK0Y0IAIs7dju6fm80317wlYka8WJW1wlcLZT5nvWOuQ85vox9COAJ9nr0kfG3rzUsyJr8i0f0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:510b:b0:311:e8cc:4248 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-318c92ffe6amr13221413a91.33.1751147329555; Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:48:39 -0700 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXxSpUEHRRj6wXYoCx1AP0F64jxfM6R_lUVN8IkMxxx_eT_nfqd_x7u7HBI Message-ID: To: Marcus Ihlar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008711320638a8c247" Message-ID-Hash: ID6QSIFP2IHTBK7A3KANZPARR4UPVQNE X-Message-ID-Hash: ID6QSIFP2IHTBK7A3KANZPARR4UPVQNE X-MailFrom: gregimirsky@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ippm.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bippm=5D_Re=3A_Working_group_last_call_for_Quality_of_Outcome_?= =?utf-8?q?=28draft-ietf-ippm-qoo=29?= List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000008711320638a8c247 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Marcus, Authors, et al., I read the draft and support its progress to publication. I have several notes and will appreciate your consideration: - In the Introduction. When stressing composability of the Quality Attenuation, consider adding an informational reference to, for example,= RFC 6049 . (Yes, there's a reference in Section 2.2 Requirements) - "Accuracy" and "precision" are used in the document extensively, sometimes even in the same sentence. In general, accuracy can be interpreted as precision. Do you use a different interpretation in the document? If that is the case, providing that in the document will help = a reader. Otherwise, consider adding a note that "accuracy" and "precision= " are used in the text interchangeably and avoid "accuracy and precision" = by removing one. - Furthermore, an explanation of what value is considered as the Ground Truth and is being reflected with some accuracy/precision by measurement= s, would be helpful to a reader. - A nit. I think that we use "Quality Attenuation" as a term. In that case, it must be uppercased throughout the document. - I don't think that applications or protocols act on their own will: Applications and the underlying networking protocols make separate optimizations ... - In the Introduction s/allow for/allows for/ - In the Motivation s/i unattainable/is unattainable/ - In Requirements, consider s/applications will work well/an application will work well/ - I wonder what is the significance of using '*' in the enumerated list? Regards, Greg On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:42=E2=80=AFAM Marcus Ihlar wrote: > Hello IPPM, > > > > This email initiates the working group last call for Quality of Outcome > (draft-ietf-ippm-qoo). > > > > The current version of the document can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo/ > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo-03.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 *Thursday* *July 3, 2025*. > > > > BR, > > Marcus and Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list -- ippm@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ippm-leave@ietf.org > --0000000000008711320638a8c247 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Marcus, Authors, et al.,
I read t= he draft and support its progress to publication. I have several notes and = will appreciate=C2=A0your consideration:
  • In the Introduct= ion. When stressing composability of the Quality Attenuation, consider addi= ng an informational reference to, for example, RFC 6049. (Yes, there's a reference in Secti= on 2.2 Requirements)
  • =C2=A0"Accuracy" and "precision= " are used in the document extensively, sometimes even in the same sen= tence. In general, accuracy can be interpreted as precision. Do you use a d= ifferent interpretation in the document? If that is the case, providing tha= t in the document will help a reader. Otherwise, consider adding a note tha= t "accuracy" and "precision" are used in the text inter= changeably=C2=A0and avoid "accuracy and precision" by removing on= e.
  • Furthermore, an explanation of what value is considered as the G= round Truth and is being reflected with some accuracy/precision by measurem= ents, would be helpful to a reader.
  • A nit. I think that we use &quo= t;Quality Attenuation" as a term. In that case, it must be uppercased = throughout the document.
  • I don't think that applications or pro= tocols act on their own will:
Applications = and the underlying networking protocols make separate optimizations ...
  • In the Introduction s/allow for/allows for/
  • In the Motivation s/i unattainable/is unattainable/
  • In Requir= ements, consider s/applications will work well/an application will work wel= l/
  • I wonder what is the significance=C2=A0of using '*' in t= he enumerated list?
Regards,
Greg
<= br>

On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6= :42=E2=80=AFAM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
=

Hello IPPM,

=C2=A0

This email initiates the working group last call for= Quality of Outcome (draft-ietf-ippm-qoo).

=C2=A0

The current version of the document can be found her= e:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf= -ippm-qoo/

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft= -ietf-ippm-qoo-03.html

=C2=A0

Please review the document and reply to this email w= ith any comments and indicate whether you believe it is ready for publicati= on.

This WGLC will last for three weeks and end on Th= ursday July 3, 2025.

=C2=A0

BR,

Marcus and Thomas

= =C2=A0

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- ipp= m@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ippm-leave@ietf.org
--0000000000008711320638a8c247--