Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:23:25 +0200

IPPM Group,

This is a Working Group Last Call for the draft:

    TCP Throughput Testing Methodology
    draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

This version of the draft addresses all issues brought up on the list and
at the Maastricht meeting.  It also fixes a number of ID-nits.  The authors
believe that no further work on the draft is needed.  Note that there are
a few spelling mistakes in the draft, these will be fixed when including
any other LC comments.

Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, September 20,
9:00 UTC.  An URL for the draft is:

    http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

Matt & Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:50:31 +0200

Henk,

If time allows, I'll send more comments.

If not, here's my view:

Change the document title to

"Framework for a TCP Throughput Testing Methodology"

Arguments:

The document as is does not contain any Type P Specification. See definitions in

"2.2 Metrics for TCP Throughput Tests"

The document only gives guidance on how to measure RTT, bandwidth and some auiliary 
parameters as RTT jitter (it does not specify how to measure these or refer to 
specifications of related measurements). I don't recall having seen references to 
prior related work of IPPM (last read version was draft -05). 

All in all, I doubt that two implementors are able to measure compatible metrics 
based on the documents definitions as they are by now. Even if it is only 
"Informational" I'd prefer classification as a "framework". Many or most other 
informational documents produced by IPPM contain Type P specifications as soon as 
metrics are to be established.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:23 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-06.txt

IPPM Group,

Matt & Henk

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm