Hi, This version addresses the concerns from my GEN-ART review. I agree that it's reasonable to skip the figure numbers with only two small figures. Thanks! Ben. > On Jan 9, 2015, at 5:33 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > >