A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-05
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-21)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my comments.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-19 for -04)
Unknown
Nice to see us moving documents to Internet Standard when it's appropriate.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-19 for -04)
Unknown
(reviewing only the changes) -- 3.6: I concur with Alissas's DISCUSS about the added sentence about the impacts of transport encryption. -- 5.4: Why not just remove the deprecated statistic? Nits: -- section 1: If there's another update, I suggest moving this to an appendix and not leave it up to the RFC editor to decide. Also, do you expect the RFC editor to remove the opening note? If so, I recommend saying so explicitly. s/differencer/differences
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-14 for -04)
Unknown
No issues from my perspective given I only reviewed the changes (diff is a wonderful thing) between this draft and RFC 2679.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-20)
Unknown
Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-08-19 for -04)
Unknown
I support Alissa's DISCUSS. The newly added comment in 3.6 about transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or else some justification should be offered. I would have hoped for a fuller exposition of the positive and negative impacts of encryption, or none. - the secdir review [1] notes some nits. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05920.html
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown