[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt
Hi Al,
How do we arrange the way the contribution to the composition draft ?
As a first step, to prepare the version 01 of the draft I propose to send you my definitions of composition metrics.
Regarding passive metrics, I will propose a definition of a passive one way delay metric based on the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Stream defined in draft-stephan-ippm-multimetrics-01.txt.
Regards
Emile
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> Maurizio Molina
> Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 16:53
> À : ippm@ietf.org
> Objet : [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt
>
> Hi Al,
> some comments on your draft:
>
> - sec 3.1:
> ...This means that the complete path metric may be composed from:
>
> + the same metric for each sub-path
>
> + multiple metrics for each sub-path (possibly one that is the same
>
> as the complete path metric)
>
> + a single sub-path metrics that is different from the complete
>
> path metric
>
> =>Comment: I understand the first example, not the other two. Shouldn't
> we stick, for simplicity, to the first case?
>
> - sec. 3.2:
> For each metric, the applicable circumstances are defined, in terms of
> whether the composition:
> Requires the same test packets to traverse all sub-paths, or may use
> similar packets sent and collected separately in each sub-path.
>
> => Comment: I think the sentence brings some confusion, mixing
> de-composition and composition. The draft should focus on composition
> only, and should say it explicitly. Also, by mentioning test packets you
> seem to limit to active measurements, whereas in other parts of the
> draft you leave the door open to passive measurement as well.
>
> - Sec. 4:
> One-way Delay Composition Metrics and Statistics
>
> => Comment: Shouldn't it read "Composition of One-way Delay Metrics and
> Statistics"?
>
> - Sec. 4.1.8
> "...Therefore, the sub-path measurements may differ from the performance
> experienced by packets on the complete path. Measurements employing
> sufficient sub-path address pairs mightproduce bounds on the extent of
> this error."
>
> => Comment: Not sure what you mean by "sufficient sub-path address
> pairs". I think this is however a delicate point and Lei's concerns, if
> I understood well, were also about this. Could you clarify?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Maurizio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
--
to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>