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