Subject: [ippm] Last Call: 'Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:52:31 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG to consider 
the following document:

- 'Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM '
   <draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-11.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-04-10.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-11.txt

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:54:23 +0200

Hi,

I just realized I hadn't sent my comments on draft-ietf-ippm- 
reordering-11.txt yet. I do consider them minor (otherwise I wouldn't  
have initiated IETF Last Call yet) and they can all be addressed  
during the final editing cycle. Nice job overall!

One thing that does need to be checked is wording related to sequence  
numbers.  The assumption here seems to be that sequence numbers are  
consecutive integers, because many of the metrics use the fact that  
NextExp is larger by 1 than the sequence number of the previous  
packet. However, in some places (e.g., lines 181, 188, 354), other  
wording such as "monotonically increasing", "incrementing", etc. is  
used when talking about the characteristics of sequence numbers,  
which do not quite describe the same property.

lines 281-283: Not sure if the statement on "working group's view"  
should remain, given this is moving towards publication now

lines 304-306: don't understand the text in parentheses

line 1147-1148: reference DCCP and remove "future", RFC should be out  
any day now - also, make sure to reference the correct CCID

lines 1309-1314: might want to talk about the MSL here, too

Editing its:

bunch of double references, e.g. line 158: "RFC2119 [RFC2119]"

some headings end in a colon (unusual), different headings  
capitalized differently

check use of "affect" and "affects", should be "effects"

line 303: s/meet/meets/

lines 352-357: might want to point to the overflow discussion in  
Section 6

lines 471-473: "Whether.." - not a sentence

line 498: reference section number instead of "later"

line 528: reference section number instead of section title

lines 836-837: s/depend on greatly on/depend greatly on/

line 892: s/in order/in-order/ (other places, too)

line 1146: s/half/halve/ (also, sentence starts with a digit)

line 1294: s/seconds-worth/seconds worth/

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories