Round-Trip Packet Loss Metrics
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
( Ron Bonica ) Yes
( Wesley Eddy ) Yes
( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection
( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection
Benoit Claise (was Discuss) No Objection
- Section 4.1. Name: Type-P-Round-trip-Loss I double checked this name with RFC 2680 1. It should be Type-P-Round-trip-Packet-Loss throughout the document 2. I opened this errata on RFC 2680 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3186 I'll trust the IPPM community on this one. No need to discuss further Regards, Benoit.
( Ralph Droms ) No Objection
( Adrian Farrel ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-04-06 for -03)
Other comments coming from Dan Frost's review > 1. Although it's probably obvious to most readers, it would be helpful > to provide a brief informal definition of "round-trip loss" early in > the introduction. A mention of the venerable "ping" procedure would > also not be amiss. > 2. Most of the text seems to assume an "active" or test-based > measurement approach, but Section 9.2 refers to passive measurement. > It would be helpful to discuss the applicability of the latter > approach. > Nits: > > 1. The phrase "as immediately as possible" that appears a couple of > times in the text (and that seems to originate in RFC 5357) is a bit > unfortunate. "Immediately" or "as quickly as possible" are better. > > 2. Section 5.4, second paragraph: s/affects/effects/ > > 3. Section 8, second paragraph: s/Two key features ... is described/ > Two key features ... are described/ > > 4. Section 9.3, first paragraph: > OLD > it is possible to change the processing of the packets (e.g. > increasing or decreasing delay) that may distort the measured > performance. > NEW > it is possible to change the processing of the packets (e.g. > increasing or decreasing delay) in a way that may distort the > measured performance. > END
Stephen Farrell (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-04-11 for -03)
I had a discuss to check that Sandy Murphy's secdir review comments had been taken into account. I asked and wasn't told they hadn't been, so I've cleared.
Brian Haberman No Objection
( Russ Housley ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-04-20 for -04)
Please consider the comments raised by the Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 10-Apr-2012. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07340.html