Loss Episode Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
RFC 6534
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes
It may be obvious, but I believe that some of the Metric Units section should aboid ambiguity about the numbers in the definition of the metrics. Section 6.1.3: s/A number in the interval [0,1]/A decimal number in the interval [0,1]/ Section 6.2.3: s/A non-negative number of seconds./A non-negative integer number of seconds./
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
Please s/draft/document/ --- In the definition of Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream I was surprised that there is no statement that the packet pairs are contiguous. That is, that there is no other packet transmission between the second packet in the first pair and the first packet in the second pair. Given the term "stream" I expected this to be the case, but the text is silent and the definitions apply only to the time of transmission in a way that allows interspersion. Could you consider clarifying (either way) to be sure to state your intentions. --- Section 10 would be clearer if it said "This document requests no actions from IANA."
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
Ari Keränen's review:
2.4. Metric Definition
[...] Src sent the first bit of a Type-P
packet to Dst at wire-time T1 and the first bit of a Type-P
packet to Dst a wire-time T2>T1 [...]
The text says twice "first bit of a Type-P packet"; should it rather say
on the second occasion "first bit of the next Type-P packet" or
something? And the same issue repeats in the following definitions.
3.5. Discussion
which to select a substream from it for the purposes of loss episode
s/which/wish/ ?
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
The Gen-ART Review by Peter McCann on 19-Nov-2011 raised several editorial suggestions. Please consider them. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06942.html
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 1.1, 2nd para refers to "by Gilbert and...by Elliot" but doesn't give references. Those would be good to include. - Is section 8 appropriate to include? If so, it'd be more useful if "some of the material" could be more tightly scoped I guess.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection