Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics

>
> regards,
> Al
>
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:03:06 -0500
>> From: Daniel Genin <dgenin@...>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
>> To: Al Morton <acmorton@...>
>> CC: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@...>
>> Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics
>> X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>> X-NIST-MailScanner-From: dgenin@...
>>
>> A very lucid and well written exposition on the relevance of metric's consumer
>> to the way that it should be defined. It is surprising this important point
>> has not been addressed earlier.
>>
>> Just a couple of comments:
>>
>> I. In Section 5.1.2 the bulleted list item 2 appears to suggest that
>> orthogonality of metrics is a desirable property, however, no explanation for
>> this is given. Moreover, metrics appearing in Section 6 do not appear to be
>> orthogonal suggesting that orthogonality is not a necessary property. If
>> orthogonality is a desirable property in the case of delay and loss metrics
>> but not in the case of raw capacity metrics this probably needs to be clarified.
>>
>> II. Minor grammatical corrections:
>>     1. Section 5.2, Paragraph 1, line 5 "...is based a conditional
>> distribution..." should probably be "...is based on a conditional
>> distribution...".
>>     2. Section 6.2, the first letter of the title needs to be capitalized.
>>     3. Section 6.6, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should
>> probably be "...gives the user..."
>>     4. Section 6.6, Paragraph 2, line 1 "What ways can Utilization  be
>> measured..." should probably be "In what ways can Utilization be measured..."
>> or "How can Utilization be measured..."
>>     5. Section 7.5, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should
>> probably be "...gives the user..."
>>
>> Hope this is useful.
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 1/7/2012 10:26 AM, Al Morton wrote:
>>> At 08:37 AM 1/2/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>>>> Authors: Please update this draft.
>>>> All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it.
>>>>
>>>> Henk
>>> As promised, here's the update of reporting metrics where we've
>>> finished section 6 based on recent measurement and reporting
>>> experience. Also checked nits and the list (discussion of this
>>> draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years).
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Al
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics
>>> Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>           Title           : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View
>>>           Author(s)       : Al Morton
>>>                             Gomathi Ramachandran
>>>                             Ganga Maguluri
>>>           Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt
>>>           Pages           : 26
>>>           Date            : 2012-01-07
>>>
>>>      Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses
>>>      in mind.  The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations
>>>      (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on
>>>      analysis of the two key audience points-of-view.  It describes how
>>>      the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and
>>>      options when seeking info that serves their needs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> ippm@...
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>>
>