I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-04-10
IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-19
IESG Telechat date: 2012-04-12
Summary: This draft is effectively ready for publication as a proposed
standard, but there are a few minor issues that may need attention first.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- section 5, last paragraph: " ... (or other process, the details of which
MUST be specified if used)."
Specified how? Does 2330 state what level of spec is needed? I note this draft
mentions the lack of an IANA registry...
-- section 7, paragraph 4: "Measurement implementations SHOULD address this
possible outcome."
This seems to conflict with the MUST in the last paragraph of section 5.4.
-- section 9.1, last paragraph: "should establish bilateral or multi-lateral
agreements"
Normative?
Also, are such policies really up to the IETF to recommend?
-- section 9.2, first paragraph: "Passive measurement must restrict attention"
Normative?
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 3.2:
Is Tmax measured at src or dst? Does it effectively represent the "reasonable"
time limit mentioned in TstampDst?
-- section 5.3:
This seems redundant with last paragraph of section 5.
-- section 7, paragraph 4: "As discussed above..."
A section number would be helpful.
-- section 8, 2nd paragraph: "Both unexpected test packet discards and
the systematic and random errors and uncertainties MUST be recorded."
Sentence needs some commas to demarcate the two choices.