Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 05)|
|Team||General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)|
Genart Last Call review of - by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of - by Sandra Murphy (diff)
|Draft last updated||2012-05-14|
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.