Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-22
Requested 2014-12-11
Authors Al Morton
Draft last updated 2014-12-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08-genart-lc-campbell-2014-12-23
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2014-12-23
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-12-22
IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-22
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have a few comments that might should be considered first.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

-- section 3, paragraph 3: "Service testing MUST respect"

Who or what does the MUST apply to? The protocol (or protocol designers)? The
users of the protocol? (I note that much of the draft uses the form "The
protocol MUST...", is the same meant here?)

-- section 3, paragraph 4:

This paragraph seems to be saying that the protocol must meet other,
non-enumerated "practical matter" requirements. It seems like those should be
actually enumerated.

-- section 4, paragraph immediately after alpha list:

The first sentence seems to be redundant with normative text right before the

-- section 5, first paragraph:

The first sentence seems to be redundant with normative text in the previous
section. If the idea is to point out that the requirements in the previous
section, please consider using descriptive language instead of 2119 language.
(Repeated normative text tends to be error prone, and creates confusion about
which text is authoritative.)

-- section 5, note concerning "vanishing number of symmetrical-rate..."

Does this mean the protocol doesn't have to worry about it, or that while the
number is shrinking it still needs to be considered?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Abstract: second sentence

This sentence is pretty heavy on the sales pitch, and will likely become
irrelevant once the work this draft contemplates is done. Please consider
whether you really want it in the abstract.  (For the record, I have no
objection to the similar language in the intro.)

-- General:

Consider numbering you diagrams and using cross references, rather than
"below". Don't count on them being in the same relative position with the text
that references them in all possible renderings.

-- Section 1, diagram:

It's not clear to me whether the "User, Device, or Host" label(s)" are intended
to be one label for all 3 access methods, or if user is tied to fiber, Device
to copper, etc. I assume the former, but the diagram looks more like the latter.

-- 2, paragraph starting with "Support of active measurement methods will be
addressed here..."

What is meant by "here"? This document? Or the working group?  (If the former,
consider present tense.)

-- 2, last paragraph:

This draft _is_ the problem statement, right? Consider saying "problem
statement mandates" rather than "will mandate".

-- section 3, paragraph 6: "it is expected...MUST"

The phrase "it is expected" seems odd in combination with MUST. Does this mean
it _might_ be a MUST? Assuming that's not the case, I suggest dropping "it is
expected that".

-- section 4, preface to alpha list:

This means "All _supported_ categories", correct?

-- section 4, 2nd to last paragraph:

What actionable guidance is intended by this paragraph?

-- section 4, last paragraph "(these could be listed later, if desired)"

Listed in this document, or somewhere else. Is this text that was intended to
be deleted?

-- same paragraph: "... protocol entity that collects results."

Is this the RECEIVER? The REPORTER? I suggest sticking to the defined terms.