Subject: Re: [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:26:00 +0200

Please find below my contributor comments. 

 1. idnits complains on a number of references problems:

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 1157' on line
     1149
'[RFC 1157] and via future extensions to the SIP Management...'

Please add [RFC1157] as reference

  == Unused Reference: '12' is defined on line 1282, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[12]  Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP
a...'

  == Unused Reference: '13' is defined on line 1286, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[13]  Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Synta...'

Please take out [12] and [13] if not needed. 

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '9'

These three are probably OK

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330
(ref.
     '11')

Does this need to be a normative reference? 

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2234
(ref.
     '13') (Obsoleted by RFC 4234)

Is this intentional, or can 2234 be replaced by RFC 4234. Of course if
[13] will be taken out (see above) no need to answer this. 

2. Introduction - 'responsiveness of the network' - is it really only
the network, or rather 'responsiveness of the network and application
servers'? 

3. same, why is DO NOT capitalized? 

4. section 4.4 - why does SDT need to be adjusted to indicate 'minutes
and seconds' and not just seconds? 

5. section 4.8 - the definition of SD seems broken. If the output value
of this metric is numerical and should be adjusted to indicate a
percentage of defective sessions, the formula seems to be SD = (# of
Defective Sessions) / (Total # of Session Requests). Am I missing
something? 

6. For consistency reasons should not metrics define in 4.8, 4.9, 4.10
be all named as Rate? 

7. RFC1157 is historic. Use RFC3411 to refer to SNMP

8. I suggest to add RAQMON (RFC4710) with possible future extensions to
the set of methods for transferring metrics information enumerated in
6.4

9. Sections 6.5 an 6.6 seem to deal with issues that are beyond the
scope of the SIP performance metrics. I think their place is not in the
normative part of this document, but maybe in the PMOL framework
document. I suggest to take out these sections completely or move them
to an Appendix to make clear that they are non-normative. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Al Morton
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01
> 
> PMOL WG,
> cc SIPPING WG,
> 
> This message begins a WG Last Call on the following:
> 
>         Title		: SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP