Skip to main content

A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
RFC 7679

Yes

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-21)
Thanks for addressing my comments.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-19 for -04)
Nice to see us moving documents to Internet Standard when it's appropriate.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-19 for -04)
(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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-14 for -04)
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-20)
Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-08-19 for -04)
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)