Loss Episode Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
RFC 6534

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Wesley Eddy) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

Comment (2011-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It may be obvious, but I believe that some of the Metric Units section should aboid ambiguity about the numbers in the definition of the metrics. 

Section 6.1.3:

s/A number in the interval [0,1]/A decimal number in the interval [0,1]/

Section 6.2.3:

s/A non-negative number of seconds./A non-negative integer number of seconds./

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Ari Keränen's review:

2.4.  Metric Definition
        [...] Src sent the first bit of a Type-P
        packet to Dst at wire-time T1 and the first bit of a Type-P
        packet to Dst a wire-time T2>T1 [...]

The text says twice "first bit of a Type-P packet"; should it rather say 
on the second occasion "first bit of the next Type-P packet" or 
something? And the same issue repeats in the following definitions.


3.5.  Discussion

    which to select a substream from it for the purposes of loss episode

s/which/wish/ ?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Please s/draft/document/

---

In the definition of Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream I was 
surprised that there is no statement that the packet pairs are
contiguous. That is, that there is no other packet transmission between
the second packet in the first pair and the first packet in the second
pair. Given the term "stream" I expected this to be the case, but the
text is silent and the definitions apply only to the time of 
transmission in a way that allows interspersion.

Could you consider clarifying (either way) to be sure to state your
intentions.

---

Section 10 would be clearer if it said "This document requests no
actions from IANA."

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-28 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
- 1.1, 2nd para refers to "by Gilbert and...by Elliot" but
doesn't give references. Those would be good to include.

- Is section 8 appropriate to include? If so, it'd be more
useful if "some of the material" could be more tightly 
scoped I guess.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Peter McCann on 19-Nov-2011 raised several
  editorial suggestions.  Please consider them.  The review can be
  found here:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06942.html

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection