Subject: [rmcat] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 05:41:22 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: 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-rmcat-eval-criteria/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is indeed important to be
able to compare apples with apples.

I have a generic comment, is the case of multi-path / multi-home considered in
this document ?

Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would
appreciate a response from the authors) and NITS.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --
Please add references to PCAP format and expand the acronym.

-- Section 3.1 --
AFAIK, Unix timestamps have a 1-second accuracy but this document requires an
accurancy of 200 msec. Is it expected that Unix timestamp are enough ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
The sentence "The terminology defined ..." is not a sentence as there is no
verb :-)

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:17:19 +0100

Hi Érik,

thanks much for the review.

> I have a generic comment, is the case of multi-path / multi-home considered in

No, this is out of scope.

> Please add references to PCAP format and expand the acronym.

Done in -13

> accurancy of 200 msec. Is it expected that Unix timestamp are enough ?

gettimeday() gives (s, us) pairs or (s, ns) that would be transformed
into s.us or s.ns representation -- but happy to spec this explicitly.
We are looking into a few other clarifications that will go into the -14
update.

> The sentence "The terminology defined ..." is not a sentence as there is no

Oh well, must have gotten distracted.  Fixed in -13 already.

Best,
Jörg

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:49:17 +0000

Joerg

Thank you for your reply and your answers

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 19 March 2020 at 16:17
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Érik,

    

    Done in -13

    

    Best,
    Jörg