RFC 6808: Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Standards Track
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance RFC 2679 on one-way delay metrics along the Standards Track, following the process in RFC 6576. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2679. This memo also provides direct input for development of a revision of RFC 2679. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6808
- Published
- December 2012
- Authors
- L. Ciavattone; R. Geib; A. Morton; M. Wieser
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 29
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3393IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)Current
November 2002
- RFC 6673Round-Trip Packet Loss MetricsCurrent
August 2012
- RFC 6049Spatial Composition of MetricsUpdated
January 2011
- RFC 7750Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)Current
February 2016
- RFC 7820UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)Current
March 2016
- RFC 8186Support of the IEEE 1588 Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)Current
June 2017
- RFC 4737Packet Reordering MetricsUpdated
November 2006
- RFC 8911Registry for Performance MetricsCurrent
November 2021
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?