Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:53:58 -0500

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.