Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)
RFC 7799

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Yes

Comment (2016-01-20 for -05)
No email
send info
Nice document, thanks.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-06 for -05)
No email
send info
I had the explain the differences and pros/cons of active/passive so many times...
Now I can simply refer to this document. Thanks Al.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-21 for -05)
No email
send info
4.3: would it be worth noting (here or elsewhere) that
this seems to be a hard thing to do with non-e2e ciphertext,
e.g. part way along a VPN path

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-21 for -05)
No email
send info
Jouni Korhonen performed the opsdir review

Summary: Ready with issues

Major:    None.

Minor:

* The IDnits gives a comment but the outdated reference can be corrected at any time seen appropriate.

* Line 412:  expand DSCP on the first use.

* Lines 413-414: there is no closing ")".

* Lines 491-494: I find a discussion about IPR converage in this I-D somewhat odd. Specifically because there are no hard facts i.e., "..may be covered.." Maybe it is just me and if the WG has agree to have such text there I have no problem with it.


- Jouni

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-18 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks for writing this! Its a very useful reference. Especially the discussion/examples section.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-01-19 for -05)
No email
send info
Just a nit..   Section 3. (Terms and Definitions) says that the “definitions are consistent with [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive].”  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?