Greg, Thanks for considering my review comments. My responses to specific points are found below. Kind regards, -Peter From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Peter, thank you for your thorough review and detailed comments. Please find my notes below under the GIM>> tag. I've attached the diff highlighting all the updates. Regards, Greg On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:42 AM Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
GIM>> As the result of the discussion with our AD Martin Duke, the -07 version of the document was set onto the Informational track. In your opinion, the wording you've pointed out could be appropriate for an informational document? PEY> The wording used and the lack of specificity made me think the document was useful conceptually, giving guidance to the general idea of PAMs but not something from which I would directly drive an implementation.
GIM>> We, the authors, over the course of developing the document, discussed the terminology among ourselves,e.g., the use of "conformance" and "compliance", and with the WG. Current terminology, as I understand it, is consistent and reflects the consensus of the WG. PEY> I’m completely fine with that and realize that I lack the knowledge of he discussions that went on before.
GIM>> Thank you for the question. Violated Interval Ratio is one of the PAM metrics that could be defined as noted in the last paragraph of Section 3.3. That and other metrics can be used to improve the understanding of the state of a service regarding the defined SLO thresholds. PEY> Thanks for that answer. I think the language in that paragraph also reinforces my feeling that this draft is better as an Informational specification.
GIM>> The intention of the shortened title was to highlight that PAM can be particularly useful for services governed by more than one SLO, multiple SLOs, as in the full title of the document - "Precision Availability Metrics for Services Governed by Service Level Objectives (SLOs)". If you find the short title not reflecting the intent of the document, could you kindly suggest an alternative? PEY> Touché. I’m not entirely sure what I would use. It seemed to me that the document wasn’t really emphasizing the multiplicity of SLOs, although it certainly does use the plural for several terms such as parameter or SLOs. On the other hand, it also works were there a single SLO being measured. When reading the document, I wasn’t struck by a need for there to be multiple SLOs or that there was any difference in whether one or multiple SLOs were being measured. The SLOs seem to be independent variables (at least at the high level of this document), so I was surprised at the emphasis on the multiple part in the short title. Perhaps, “Guidelines for PAMs”?
GIM>> That text has been edited in the current version -07: OLD TEXT in -06: "Precision" refers to the fact that services whose end-to-end service levels are governed by SLOs, and which must therefore be precisely delivered according to the associated quality and performance requirements. NEW TEXT in -07: "Precision" refers to services whose end-to-end service levels are governed by SLOs and must be delivered precisely according to the associated quality and performance requirements. Would you find the current version clearer and acceptable? PEY> Yes, that helps.
GIM>> Agreed. Also s/a separate topic/separate topics/ Right? PEY> Indeed!
GIM>> Removed "second or". Is that acceptable? PEY> Yes.
GIM>> Although, the applicability of these two metrics is the same, they reflect aspects of different severity. PEY> Okay.
GIM>> Indeed, some listed metrics in this list provided as examples of what could be used. Our intention is to define new metrics in the future, in a separate standard document. Do you see that as a reasonable approach for the informational document or would suggest another path forward? PEY> That approach is fine to me.
GIM>> I think that using "interval" in these sentences is intentional to reference VI, SVI, and VFI. Could you kindly suggest how we can make it clearer? PEY> My argument would be for “measurement session”, as used in the first paragraph of 3.1. Interval is used here as the period for a VI, SVI, or VFI. I see the session as the period covering all of the intervals.
GIM>> It appears that the warning is triggered by 'ø' in the following in Acknowledgment:
I hope that this is tolerable. PEY> Completely. I just couldn’t easily find (on the particular OS I was using) what was causing idnits to complain. |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
