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

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

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -04)
No email
send info
(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

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-21)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my comments.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -04)
No email
send info
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

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-14 for -04)
No email
send info
No issues from my perspective given I only reviewed the changes (diff is a wonderful thing) between this draft and RFC 2679.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

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

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-20)
No email
send info
Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection