Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as.

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:47:50 +0200

IPPM group,

This message announces the WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01

The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears
to have support and be stable. We would like to start a Working Group Last
Call in order to move it forward.

Please raise any remaining issues by October 6, 2008, 9:00 UTC.

A URL for the draft is:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01.txt>

and the tools team also has a great page here:

<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm/draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as>

Matt & Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: "Jeff W. Boote" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:09:53 -0600

Hi All,

I think this is a good draft with a LOT of very good information. It  
is taking me some time to go through, but I wanted to provide *some*  
feedback right away on my first impression. (As someone who would very  
much like to have a draft like this published to support my ongoing  
work.)

It would be very helpful if there was more of an executive summary for  
people writing applications that could make use of these metrics (or  
writing applications to produce these metrics). For example, I'd love  
to see something near the beginning that said, for these types of  
applications A, B, C - we recommend you use this metric, and that  
metric is derived using processes X, Y, Z.

And then for those really interested in the *why*, you already have  
very good information here.

I realize part of the issue here is that you don't necessarily give a  
recommendation in all cases. (For example, section 6.5 still has  
questions about what to report for a single number.) That is why I  
would perhaps encourage you to break out a couple of application  
classes, and indicate a good recommendation for each instead.

If this is counter to your goals for this draft, please feel free to  
ignore. This is just what I was hoping to see based on the title/ 
abstract.

thanks,
jeff

On Sep 22, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01.txt 
> >
> 	
>