Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:03:46 +0200

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08
Title: Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: 18 April 2012
IESG Telechat Date: 18 April 2012

Summary:

This document is almost ready for publication.  Perhaps also in an
academic journal ;-)

Minor comments:

I think the authors should seriously question the intended status of
this document.  Is this really a BCP?  The normative language, as
applied, suggests so.  See, for instance:
>    The minimal report on measurements MUST include both Loss and Delay
>    Metrics.

Alternatively, statements like this one should probably be stated in a
more matter-of-fact way, especially since it's rather obvious.

One additional comment: this work is EXTREMELY DENSE.  It is very well
referenced, but there a number of new concepts introduced, nearly
begging for separate works.  One example is introduction of Type-C,
where some additional expansion might be helpful to the reader (like me).

Nits:

Section 6.1: expand first use of acronyms OWAMP and TWAMP.

Eliot

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:33:49 -0400

Hi Eliot,

>This document is almost ready for publication.  Perhaps also in an 

Thanks for the compliment, and your review.
replies below,
Al

>Alternatively, statements like this one should probably be stated in 
>a more matter-of-fact way, especially since it's rather obvious.

A few 2119 requirements terms slipped into sections 6 and 7,
but are not really needed and will be replaced with lower case terms.

>One additional comment: this work is EXTREMELY DENSE.  It is very 
>well referenced, but there a number of new concepts introduced, 
>nearly begging for separate works.  One example is introduction of 
>Type-C, where some additional expansion might be helpful to the 
>reader (like me).

It will be left for further work on TCP metrics to flesh-out
Type-C, but new references to RFC 3148 and 6349 should help
the reader for now.

>Section 6.1: expand first use of acronyms OWAMP and TWAMP.

done.