Subject: [ippm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:28:58 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor/

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

Just a few mostly editorial comments:

- Abstract: Did you mean OPTIONAL to be capitalized in the abstract? I'm
not sure what the purpose of a 2119 keyword would be there.

- 1, first paragraph:
There are lots of missing articles ("the") in the first paragraph.

-1, 2nd paragraph:
There's no need to say it's OPTIONAL more than once.

- 2.1, 1st paragraph:
"DSCP and ECN monitoring flag" and "Mode" each need a leading "the".

- 2.2.1:
The MUST in the first paragraph is not really needed. The
Session-Reflector either supports the extension and does these things, or
does not support the extension and does not do these things.

- First bullet in list at end of 2.2.1:
s/extracts/extract

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:48:39 +0000

Dear Ben,
thank you for your careful review and helpful comments. Please find my answers and proposed resolution in-line under tag GIM>>.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 3:29 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02: (with COMMENT)

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.)

- Abstract: Did you mean OPTIONAL to be capitalized in the abstract? I'm not sure what the purpose of a 2119 keyword would be there.
GIM>> Removed OPTIONAL

- 1, first paragraph:
There are lots of missing articles ("the") in the first paragraph.
GIM>> This is proposed updated of the paragraph. Please let me know if these changes improved the text.
I've updated capitalization of Type-P descriptor throughout the text as well.
NEW TEXT:
   The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] defines the
   Type-P Descriptor field and negotiation of its value in OWAMP-Control
   protocol.  The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357]
   states that only a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
   [RFC2474], [RFC3168], [RFC3260] value can be defined by Type-P
   Descriptor and the negotiated value must be used by both Session-
   Sender and Session-Reflector.  The TWAMP specification also states
   that the same DSCP value (found in the Session-Sender packet) MUST be
   used in the test packet reflected by the Session-Reflector.  However
   the TWAMP-Test protocol does not specify any methods to determine or
   report when the DSCP value has changed or is different than expected
   in the forward or reverse direction.  Re-marking the DSCP (changing
   its original value) in IP networks is possible and often accomplished
   by a Differentiated Services policy configured on a single node along
   the IP path.  In many cases, a change of the DSCP value indicates an
   unintentional or erroneous behavior.  At best, the Session-Sender can
   detect a change of the DSCP reverse direction assuming such change is
   actually detectable.

-1, 2nd paragraph:
There's no need to say it's OPTIONAL more than once.
GIM>> Thank you, removed the second one.

- 2.1, 1st paragraph:
"DSCP and ECN monitoring flag" and "Mode" each need a leading "the".
GIM>> Yes, updated. I've made consistent use of "DSCP and ECN Monitoring flag" throughout the document.
- 2.2.1:
The MUST in the first paragraph is not really needed. The Session-Reflector either supports the extension and does these things, or does not support the extension and does not do these things.
GIM>> Agree, removed.

GIM>> Yes, thank you.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:38:17 -0500

Thanks for the response. These updates would address all of my comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:48, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

> Dear Ben,
> thank you for your careful review and helpful comments. Please find my 
> answers and proposed resolution in-line under tag GIM>>.
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
>
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02: (with COMMENT)
>
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> - Abstract: Did you mean OPTIONAL to be capitalized in the abstract? 
> I'm not sure what the purpose of a 2119 keyword would be there.
> GIM>> Removed OPTIONAL
>
> - 1, first paragraph:
> GIM>> Yes, updated. I've made consistent use of "DSCP and ECN 
> Monitoring flag" throughout the document.
> - 2.2.1:
> Session-Reflector either supports the extension and does these things, 
> or does not support the extension and does not do these things.
> GIM>> Agree, removed.
>