Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)
RFC 7799
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Just a nit.. Section 3. (Terms and Definitions) says that the “definitions are consistent with [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive].” Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes
Nice document, thanks.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
I had the explain the differences and pros/cons of active/passive so many times... Now I can simply refer to this document. Thanks Al.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Jouni Korhonen performed the opsdir review Summary: Ready with issues Major: None. Minor: * The IDnits gives a comment but the outdated reference can be corrected at any time seen appropriate. * Line 412: expand DSCP on the first use. * Lines 413-414: there is no closing ")". * Lines 491-494: I find a discussion about IPR converage in this I-D somewhat odd. Specifically because there are no hard facts i.e., "..may be covered.." Maybe it is just me and if the WG has agree to have such text there I have no problem with it. - Jouni
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
4.3: would it be worth noting (here or elsewhere) that this seems to be a hard thing to do with non-e2e ciphertext, e.g. part way along a VPN path
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for writing this! Its a very useful reference. Especially the discussion/examples section.