datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.6.4.p1, 2014-10-20
Report a bug

Round-Trip Packet Loss Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-05

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

Adrian Farrel

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

Benoit Claise

Comment (2012-05-08 for -05)

- 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.

Stephen Farrell

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.

[Russ Housley]

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