Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements
RFC 7497

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    ippm mailing list <ippm@ietf.org>,
    ippm chair <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements'
  (draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-10.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Spencer Dawkins and Martin Stiemerling.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/


Technical Summary

   This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem statement for test 
   protocols to measure IP Performance Metrics.  The rate measurement scenario 
   has wide-spread attention of Internet access subscribers and seemingly all 
   industry players, including regulators. Key test protocol aspects require 
   the ability to control packet size on the tested path and enable 
   asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder architecture.

Working Group Summary

   A controversial topic regards the level of requirement for the capability 
   to control asymmetric packet sizes in two-way testing architectures. A few 
   participants felt that the document should not require asymmetric packet 
   sizes, even though there are a number of cases where it would appear 
   asymmetric packets sizes would be essential to measure the path capacity 
   accurately.

   As a compromise, the author updated the document to require asymmetric 
   packet rate generation, and both symmetric and asymmetric packet sizes are 
   recommended. The many circumstances where asymmetric packet size testing is 
   needed are documented, and many of these circumstances would be unknown 
   prior to comparative tests using symmetric and asymmetric packet sizes.

Document Quality

   The draft was reviewed by many members of WG. There are already standards 
   track protocol extension proposals that respond to the requirements in 
   this draft. At least one protocol solution has been implemented and 
   deployed.

Personnel

   The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny. 
   The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.