Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document. In general I found it clear, useful, and an easy read.
I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. The majority of these are simply readability comments, but it does end with a more important question… Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll start IETF LC. S1: O: "Active measurements at Internet-scale can target either collaborating parties or non-collaborating ones." P: "Active measurements can target either collaborating parties or non-collaborating ones." C: Even at none Internet-scale the target can be collaborating, or not. O: "This document suggests some simple techniques allowing any party or organization to understand:" P: "This document suggests some simple techniques to allow any party or organization to understand:" C: Flow / grammar. O: "Note: it is expected that only researchers with no bad intentions will use these techniques, although anyone might use them. This is discussed in Section 7." C: "with no bd intentions" seems a bit clunky - perhaps "with good intentions" instead? S4: O: "This could be: * thing * other thing * more other thing * etc." P: "Examples of this include: * thing * other thing * more other thing" C: Having 'etc' as it's own bullet seems somewhat odd. O: "The probe description URI should start at the first octet of the payload and should be terminated by an octet of 0x00, i.e., it must be null terminated." C: So, which is it? It should be null terminated. or it must be null terminated? S5: O: "The advantage of using the in-band technique is to cover the cases where the out-of-band technique is not possible, as listed above." P: "The primary advantage of using the in-band technique is that it covers the cases where the out-of-bounds technique is not feasible (as described above)" C: Readability. P: "The primary disadvantage is that it potentially biases the measurements, since packets with the Probe Description URI might be discarded." C: Readability S6: O: "Executing some measurement experiences over the global Internet obviously require some ethical considerations when transit/ destination non-solicited parties are involved." P: "Executing measurement experiments over the global Internet obviously requires ethical consideration, especially when transit/ destination non-solicited parties are involved." C: Readability. S7: Security Considerations C: I wonder if this should speak more about "false flag" operations? I send 1Mpps, and include a probe-attribution saying that I'm Eric Vynke, at +1-212-555-1212?? Suddenly you have hundreds of irate network admins calling you at 3AM.... Thank you again; I know that making edits to address nits can be annoying, but we are expecting many people to read and review the document, and so having it polished is important and polite (also, once people start commenting on nits, they seem to continue :-) ) W
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
