Subject: [ippm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:08:05 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Thanks for the "Operational Considerations" new section, as discussed
with D. Romascanu

- The document tile says problem statement, but it's a mix of problem
statement, use cases, and some protocol requirements with RFC 2119
keywords. I believe the title should be modified accordingly.

- I agree with Stephen regarding the use of RFC 2119.

   Service subscribers and
   authorized users SHOULD obtain their network operator's or service
   provider's permission before conducting tests.

Really, should I have my provider consent before running
http://www.speedtest.net/ ? :-)

-

   Current IETF standardized test protocols do not
   possess the asymmetric size generation capability with two-way
   testing.

Do you mean OWAMP/TWAMP? Please be specific