Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-10
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -09)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-02-01 for -09)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I did have one observation: Although section 2 has discussion of the variation of a number of fields and specifically includes... o Transport protocol (e.g. where TCP packets may be routed differently from UDP) ...I was surprised to find no mention of ECMP and the consequences that it may introduce for the reliability of rate measurement figures.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-02-05 for -09)
Unknown
- Thanks for the "Operational Considerations" new section, as discussed with D. Romascanu - The document tile says problem statement, but it's a mix of problem statement, use cases, and some protocol requirements with RFC 2119 keywords. I believe the title should be modified accordingly. - I agree with Stephen regarding the use of RFC 2119. Service subscribers and authorized users SHOULD obtain their network operator's or service provider's permission before conducting tests. Really, should I have my provider consent before running http://www.speedtest.net/ ? :-) - Current IETF standardized test protocols do not possess the asymmetric size generation capability with two-way testing. Do you mean OWAMP/TWAMP? Please be specific
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-02-04 for -09)
Unknown
I agree with Stephen's observations about the use of 2119 keywords in this type of document.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-02-04 for -09)
Unknown
I'll follow along on Stephen's comments and don't have any others to add. The draft is well-written, thank you for your work on it.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-02-04 for -09)
Unknown
- I'm not clear why it's a good plan for this document to state a bunch of MUST level requirements on protocol specifications, but I assume if that were problematic then this informational document would be ignored and if it's not a problem that's fine:-). Including that kind of thing can lead to unnecessary arguments though so I wondered. For example, on page 8 it (I think) says that protocols MUST allow for control (by whom?) of payload lengths, which is not something I see in typical speed test tools that'd be used by massive numbers of users, or at least that's not exposed via a UI that I can see. - section 6: surely this needs to note the problem that there can be privacy issues with (esp. multiple uses) of measurement - e.g. if I use my phone in different places to do similar measurements I may be open to some new forms of tracking. Why not note this? Why is there no "MUST NOT" requirement from this? (Assuming you stick with including such.) RFC2330 does recognise privacy for example, so why not here too? BTW I don't think I see privacy issues considered in 4656 or 5357, but I only had a very quick look. (This would be a DISCUSS from me if this were a protocol document, but I'm ok to just leave it as a comment on one like this.)
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown