Reviewer: Benson Muite Review result: Ready with Nits I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-ippm-pam>. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES. The main aim of this informational draft is to introduce sampling of traffic flows to enable data reductions that make it feasible to check the quality of service, in particular by enabling checks on the number of packets delivered within a suitably defined time interval. The notion that is introduced seems useful for a flow between two specified points. It does not seem to impact any INT directorate related areas directly, though any resulting measurement techniques that are developed may be very useful, for example when comparing IPv4 and IPv6. The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document: a) The term precision availability metrics may be misleading, since counts are aggregated over a specified time interval. Maybe something like "Aggregated Availability Metrics" could be used instead? There is a loss of precision since information about each packet is not recorded, but the resulting data reduction makes this concept useful. b) At the beginning of section 3, it may be helpful to first introduce the notions of violated and severely violated, and then apply these to intervals and packet counts. Alternatively, clear definitions could be given for the violated and severely violated packet counts. One thing that is unclear is if the violated and severely violated packet counts apply to a single specified time interval, or are aggregated over multiple time intervals. c) Section 3.3 introduces a new topic, available and unavailable states. How this might be implemented is not fully specified. It may be helpful to combine this with section 4, a section on possible extensions, as perhaps section 4.1, with material on possible statistical SLOs as 4.2. Both these sections could perhaps also be shortened and added as further bullet points in section 6. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
