Looks good. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MORTON, > ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:33 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate > Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC > > Ben, Dan, Greg, > > Version 09 of -ippm-rate-problem draft addresses your comments to great > extent. > > Although Ben's (GEN-ART) suggestion to clarify the figure in the Intro was > adopted, it seems reasonable to leave out the Figure numbers since the two > figures are referenced one time each and they are only 3 lines high (so not > likely to move far, if at all). > > Dan's (OPS-DIR) comments have been addressed (following e-mail > exchange) by inserting a new section on Operational Considerations where > we have compromised on the text. > > Greg's comments have been addressed to the extent possible without re- > visiting the "Toronto compromise" which only involved section 5. > Other comments cite WG agreements that have not actually been discussed > AFAIK, or refer to purely OPTIONAL features in the memo. > > regards, > Al > > ________________________________________ > From: IETF-Announce [ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The > IESG [iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:43 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> (Rate Measurement > Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC > > The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) > to consider the following document: > - 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement' > <draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-12-22. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem statement for > test protocols to measure IP Performance Metrics. The rate > measurement scenario has wide-spread attention of Internet access > subscribers and seemingly all industry players, including regulators. > Key test protocol aspects require the ability to control packet size > on the tested path and enable asymmetrical packet size testing in a > controller-responder architecture. > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Drate- > 2Dproblem_&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNX > CJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=EKLRXCpGDaNYiJ9WjJgA2LRIdn0QDiC > yaT1frtYfg8Y&s=TnJHba-sAmj9BdGxYeMgYS-qoQBHT0QgbNSFjZ8snbo&e= > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Drate- > 2Dproblem_ballot_&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR3 > 1OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=EKLRXCpGDaNYiJ9WjJgA2LRIdn > 0QDiCyaT1frtYfg8Y&s=8MzkfnznQ4g4XC4ZfldXKZFpASLAK89Cf4ELdsZWIZ0&e > = > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_gen- > 2Dart&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvl > siLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=EKLRXCpGDaNYiJ9WjJgA2LRIdn0QDiCyaT1frt > Yfg8Y&s=Q8ccS1OgnV3UQ8TqslGmcf_Dz8hcuFK1jGvVfV6os7c&e=