Subject: [ippm] My comments on draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03

From: William Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:28:06 -0400

[Not sure if I need to say that my comments are with my IPPM co-chair
hat off, but if yes, I'm saying it :-) ]

Ann Cerveny and I are sending more detailed comments and suggestions
(mostly grammatical) directly to the authors, but my most significant
comments on the draft are:

1) For "One-way Loss, ADK Sample Comparison", there is a sentence that
starts, "The common parameters used for tests in this section are:", but
no parameters follow.
2) In some of the examples, "public" IP addresses are used (as far as I
can tell). Should these addresses be published in an RFC?
3) I think the paragraph beginning with "There is consensus ..." might
need some clarification.
4) I thought the formatting of the IF AND THEN statements for the text
in section 2 was a little unusual.
5) I would clarify what "Imp" in figure 1 refers to although I figured
out (I think) that it refers to "implementation".

Bill Cerveny

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:53:28 -0400

Thanks for your comments, Bill.
please see brief replies below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> William Cerveny
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ippm] My comments on draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03
> 

The sentence will be revised to indicate that the 3rd level headings
describe specific experiments and the parameters are listed there,
so no information is missing from the test plan.

> can tell). Should these addresses be published in an RFC?

We included the addresses in section 3 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6808
with no problems through to publication.

> 3) I think the paragraph beginning with "There is consensus ..." might

IOW, this is an examination of results collected according to metric
definitions in IPPM RFCs, rather than a comparison of system A vs. B.
I'll see what can be done to clarify.

> in section 2 was a little unusual.

The whole point is to turn attention to the improvements of the RFC text
if necessary (again, not A vs. B). We haven't found a need to clarify 
anything fundamental in either 2679 or 2680 testing.

> out (I think) that it refers to "implementation".

Ok

> 
> Bill Cerveny
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm