Skip to main content

Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Standards Track
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03

Yes

(Wesley Eddy)

No Objection

(Brian Haberman)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2012-09-06) Unknown
I am assuming that during this evaluation all metrics, metric 
parameters, and methodologies defined in RFC 2679 were found to have
been implemented and to be of use.

Looking forward to seeing the action to advance RFC 2679.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-29 for -02) Unknown
Adrian beat me to the click here: This says it's advancing 2679, but it's not, really.  It's an implementation report.  Are we going to have a 2679bis document to actually do the advancement?  Just a management item?  Discussion on the telechat to follow....
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-30 for -02) Unknown
I share the concerns of the others.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-29 for -02) Unknown
The last paragraph of the introduction points to 2026 instead of 6410. Should it be updated to reflect 6410 the way similar text in 5657 was updated?

Does the first observation in section 6.3.2 ("it was not possible to confirm the estimated serialization time increases in field tests") indicate a need to update what 5657 asks for?

Fun fact: If the text survives, this will be the first RFC to contain the word "overlord".
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-08-30 for -02) Unknown
As Barry, and Adrian say this looks like an implementation report. If that is the case it would be useful to modify the title, Abstract and Introduction to reflect that.

NetProbe and Perfas+ need references.