Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
RFC 7312

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2014-05-15 for -04)
No email
send info
Robert Sparks made some editorial suggestions in his Gen-ART review:

---

Introduction, 3rd paragraph: What are the "proposed extensions"? Is this
sentence trying to say "There are proposed extensions to allow methodologies
to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2, but it is impossible
to guarantee that they can do so?"

Bullet 2 in block 1. of section 3: The first sentence is a fragment, and is
confusing. Should this bullet read "Payload content optimization (compression
or format conversion) in intermediate segments breaks the convention of
payload correspondence when correlating measurements are made at different
points in a path."? (That is, delete ". This" and change "made"->"are made".)

There are inconsistent styles used in the subsections of section 4 that cause
the main points to be a little hard to pull out of the text:

* in 4.1, you quote the new definition. Visually, that implies you're quoting
another source, like you do above it for the old definition. I suggest doing
something else to set this apart from the rest of the text - perhaps an
indented block?

* Whatever you do there, consider doing the same in the other sections.
Highlight "we deprecate continuity" in 4.2, for example.

* 4.4's point seems buried. Would it be correct to say (and would it help
highlight the point): "Conservative measurements in these environments
may not be possible."?

Consider changing the heading text for 4.1 to 4.5 to highlight the
change or observation you're making. That would help drive the point
of the document in the ToC. Something like this (I'm sure I've blown
the capitalization).

4.1.  Revised Definition Of Repeatability
4.2.  Continuity is not an Appropriate Alternative Criterion
4.3.  Metrics Should be Actionable
4.4.  It May Not be Possible to be Conservative
4.5.  Spatial and Temporal Composition May Bias Sampling
4.6.  Truncate the Tails of Poisson Deistrubutions

In the conclusion, break the last (very long) sentence out
into its own paragraph.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2014-05-13 for -04)
No email
send info
Section 3.1.2:

"This payload content could be either
   generated by a random device or by using part of a compressed file
   (e.g., a part of a ZIP compressed archive)."

Not sure what is meant by a random device. Surely the same device originally emitting the test traffic could emit traffic less likely to be compressed?

I was also surprised that this section does not discuss the rise in transport layer encryption, which I would expect to counteract the push towards in-network optimization in some cases.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-05-15 for -04)
No email
send info
I read through the referenced security considerations sections and don't see mention of privacy considerations to the observed traffic flows (even if it is limited information).  I also didn't see mention of the use of performance related traffic measurement for network reconnaissance.  I *think* the scope may be limited within an administrative domain, but am not entirely clear if that is the case from the draft or charter, which could alleviate concerns.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection