Hi Christer, thank you for your kind consideration of our work and the helpful suggestions. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:09 AM Christer Holmberg via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts > Title: Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Traffic Using Simple > Two-Way > Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review > result: > Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-10 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2026-02-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2026-02-18 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is well written, and easy to understand. I only have > a > couple of editorial comments that I would like the authors to address. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q1: > > The Abstract is far too long. I think it would be enough with something > like: > > "This document specifies an optional extension to the Simple Two-way > Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) to control the length and/or > number of packets sent by a Session-Reflector in response to a single > test packet from the Session-Sender during a STAMP test session. > This supports cases where a Session-Reflector responding with > Asymmetrical Packets would ensure a closer approximation between > active performance measurements and the conditions experienced by > monitored application." > GIM>> Indeed, the Abstract is better when it is not too wordly. At the same time, it would be helpful to a reader if terms used in the Abstract are well-known. "Asymmetrical packets", in fact, is the term introduced in this document. Perhaps is slightly different version of the Abstract would be acceptable: NEW TEXT: This document defines an optional STAMP extension that allows a Session-Reflector to send packets whose length or quantity differs from those sent by the Session-Sender. While standard STAMP exchanges packets symmetrically, some measurement scenarios benefit from asymmetric response packets to better reflect real application conditions. This extension enables the Session-Reflector to send packets of different sizes and/or additional packets not tied one- for-one to incoming test packets. The document also analyzes challenges in multicast performance monitoring and specifies STAMP procedures to improve measurement efficiency and reduce network impact. > > Q2: > > In the Introduction, I suggest to put the current 1st chapter to the end. > First > describe what the draft does, and then how it does it. > GIM>> The first paragraph references RFC 7497, the Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements, in which the case for asymmetrical performance measurement is formulated. The second paragraph of the Introduction introduces "asymmetrical packets". Third paragraph - refers to specific challenges of performance measurement, including rate measurement, in a multicast environment. Considering that, would maintaining the existing sequence of paragraphs be acceptable?
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
