FYI - the official announcement below, please note points for discussion:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework:
Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets
Authors : Al Morton
Joachim Fabini
Nalini Elkins
Michael S. Ackermann
Vinayak Hegde
Filename : draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2015-08-06
Abstract:
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
The memo updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC
2330 to include IPv6 packets. It also augments distinguishing
aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC
2330.
Two points (at least) are worthwhile discussing further: extent of
coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and the continued need
to define a "minimal standard-formed packet".
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; [email protected]; General
> Area Review Team
> Cc: Fred Baker (fred) ([email protected])
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
>
> Hi Brian,
> CC: Fred Baker,
> see below...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:53 AM
> > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [email protected];
> > General Area Review Team
> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > On 03/08/2015 06:45, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> >
> > <big snip>
> >
> > > If we seek to identify several more distinctions for "packets of
> > > Type-P", then I would prefer to update the RFC 2330 Framework
> > > Section
> > > 13 on this topic, so it's more widely applicable and less IPv4-
> centric.
> > > I'll take immediate steps to accomplish this update.
> >
> > Yes, I think that is much more constructive than trying to do it
> > piecemeal in the 2679bis draft. Perhaps you can contrive to plant a
> > "forward reference" to 2330bis here, by saying that future extensions
> > of the "packets of Type-P" definition will apply. That would take care
> > of all my issues in one go.
> >
> > Brian
>
> [ACM]
> Besides planting the forward reference,
> I assembled a knowledgeable author team and we produced a first draft
> update to RFC 2330 in the areas of Type-P and standard-formed packets.
> Thanks for your early suggestions on the text.
>
> Also, thanks to Fred Baker who helped us understand some of the IPv6
> complexities.
>
> The 00 text is here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00
>
> Comments welcome,
> Al
> (for the co-authors)
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
