    Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Morton
    Request for Comments: 7497                                     AT&T Labs
    Category: Informational                                       April 2015
    ISSN: 2070-1721

       Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements

    Abstract

       This memo presents a problem statement for access rate measurement
       for test protocols to measure IP Performance Metrics (IPPM).  Key
       rate measurement test protocol aspects include the ability to control
       packet characteristics on the tested path, such as asymmetric rate
       and asymmetric packet size.

    Status of This Memo

       This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
       published for informational purposes.

       This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
       (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
       received public review and has been approved for publication by the
       Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
       approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
       Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

       Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
       and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
       http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7497.

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
       document authors.  All rights reserved.

       This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
       Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
       (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
       publication of this document.  Please review these documents
       carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
       to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
       include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
       the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
       described in the Simplified BSD License.

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 1]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

    Table of Contents

       1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
         1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.  Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.  Active Rate Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.  Measurement Method Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.  Test Protocol Control and Generation Requirements . . . . . .   9
       6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

    1.  Introduction

       There are many possible rate measurement scenarios.  This memo
       describes one rate measurement problem and presents a rate
       measurement problem statement for test protocols to measure IP
       Performance Metrics (IPPM).

       When selecting a form of access to the Internet, subscribers are
       interested in the performance characteristics of the various
       alternatives.  Standardized measurements can be a basis for
       comparison between these alternatives.  There is an underlying need
       to coordinate measurements that support such comparisons and to test
       control protocols to fulfill this need.  The figure below depicts
       some typical measurement points of access networks.

       User     /====== Fiber =======  Access Node \
       Device -|------ Copper -------  Access Node -|-- Infrastructure -- GW
       or Host  \------ Radio -------  Access Node /

                                   GW = Gateway

       The access rate scenario or use case has received widespread
       attention of Internet-access subscribers and seemingly all Internet-
       industry players, including regulators.  This problem is being
       approached with many different measurement methods.  The eventual
       protocol solutions to this problem (and the systems that utilize the
       protocol) may not directly involve users, such as when tests reach
       from the infrastructure to a service-specific device, such as a
       residential gateway.  However, no aspect of the problem precludes
       users from developing a test protocol controlled via command line

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 2]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       interfaces on both ends.  Thus, a very wide range of test protocols,
       active measurement methods, and system solutions are the possible
       outcomes of this problem statement.

    1.1.  Requirements Language

       The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
       "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
       document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

    2.  Purpose and Scope

       The scope and purpose of this memo is to define the measurement
       problem statement for test protocols conducting access rate
       measurement on production networks.  Relevant test protocols include
       [RFC4656] and [RFC5357], but the problem is stated in a general way
       so that it can be addressed by any existing test protocol, such as
       [RFC6812].

       This memo discusses possible measurement methods but does not specify
       exact methods that would normally be part of the solution.

       We are interested in access measurement scenarios with the following
       characteristics:

       o  The access portion of the network is the focus of this problem
          statement.  The user typically subscribes to a service with
          bidirectional access partly described by rates in bits per second.
          The rates may be expressed as raw capacity or restricted capacity,
          as described in [RFC6703].  These are the quantities that must be
          measured according to one or more standard metrics and for which
          measurement methods must also be agreed on as a part of the
          solution.

       o  Referring to the reference path illustrated below and defined in
          [RFC7398], possible measurement points include a subscriber's
          host, the access service demarcation point, intra IP access (where
          a globally routable address is present), or the gateway between
          the measured access network and other networks.

       Subsc. -- Private -- Private -- Access -- Intra IP -- GRA -- Transit
       device     Net #1     Net #2    Demarc.    Access     GW     GRA GW

                   GRA = Globally Routable Address, GW = Gateway

       o  Rates at some links near the edge of the provider's network can
          often be several orders of magnitude less than link rates in the
          aggregation and core portions of the network.

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 3]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       o  Asymmetrical access rates on ingress and egress are prevalent.

       o  In many scenarios of interest, services of extremely large-scale
          access require low-complexity devices participating at the user
          end of the path, and those devices place limits on clock and
          control timing accuracy.

       This problem statement assumes that the most likely bottleneck device
       or link is adjacent to the remote (user-end) measurement device or is
       within one or two router/switch hops of the remote measurement
       device.

       Other use cases for rate measurement involve situations where the
       packet switching and transport facilities are leased by one operator
       from another, and the link capacity available cannot be directly
       determined (e.g., from device-interface utilization).  These
       scenarios could include mobile backhaul, Ethernet service access
       networks, and/or extensions of layer 2 or layer 3 networks.  The
       results of rate measurements in such cases could be employed to
       select alternate routing, investigate whether capacity meets some
       previous agreement, and/or adapt the rate of traffic sources if a
       capacity bottleneck is found via the rate measurement.  In the case
       of aggregated leased networks, available capacity may also be
       asymmetric.  In these cases, the tester is assumed to have a sender
       and receiver location under their control.  We refer to this scenario
       below as the aggregated leased-network case.

       This memo describes protocol support for active measurement methods
       consistent with the IPPM working group's traditional charter.  Active
       measurements require synthetic traffic streams dedicated to testing
       and do not make measurements on user traffic.  See Section 2 of
       [RFC2679], where the concept of a stream is first introduced in IPPM
       literature as the basis for collecting a sample (defined in
       Section 11 of [RFC2330]).

       As noted in [RFC2330], the focus of access traffic management may
       influence the rate measurement results for some forms of access, as
       it may differ between user and test traffic if the test traffic has
       different characteristics, primarily in terms of the packets
       themselves (see Section 13 of [RFC2330] for the considerations on
       packet type, or Type-P).

       There are several aspects of Type-P where user traffic may be
       examined and selected for special treatment that may affect
       transmission rates.  Various aspects of Type-P are known to influence

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 4]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) routing with possible rate measurement
       variability across parallel paths.  Without being exhaustive, the
       possibilities include:

       o  Packet length

       o  IP addresses

       o  Transport protocol (e.g., where TCP packets may be routed
          differently from UDP)

       o  Transport-protocol port numbers

       This issue requires further discussion when specific solutions/
       methods of measurement are proposed; for this problem statement, it
       is sufficient to identify the problem and indicate that the solution
       may require an extremely close emulation of user traffic, in terms of
       one or more factors above.

       Although the user may have multiple instances of network access
       available to them, the primary problem scope is to measure one form
       of access at a time.  It is plausible that a solution for the single
       access problem will be applicable to simultaneous measurement of
       multiple access instances, but treatment of this scenario is beyond
       the current scope this document.

       A key consideration is whether or not active measurements will be
       conducted with user traffic present.  In-Service testing takes place
       with user traffic present.  Out-of-Service testing occurs during pre-
       service assessment or during maintenance that interrupts service
       temporarily.  Out-of-Service testing includes activities described as
       "service commissioning", "service activation", and "planned
       maintenance".  Opportunistic In-Service testing (when there is no
       user traffic present throughout the test interval, such as outside
       normal business hours) is essentially equivalent to Out-of-Service
       testing.  Both In-Service and Out-of-Service testing are within the
       scope of this problem.

       It is a non-goal to solve the measurement protocol specification
       problem in this memo.

       It is a non-goal to standardize methods of measurement in this memo.
       However, the problem statement mandates support for one category of
       rate measurement methods in the test protocol and adequate control
       features for the methods in the control protocol (assuming the
       control and test protocols are separate).

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 5]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

    3.  Active Rate Measurement

       This section lists features of active measurement methods needed to
       measure access rates in production networks.

       Coordination between source and destination devices through control
       messages and other basic capabilities described in the methods of
       IPPM RFCs [RFC2679] [RFC2680], and assumed for test protocols such as
       [RFC5357] and [RFC4656], are taken as given.

       Most forms of active testing intrude on user performance to some
       degree, especially In-Service testing.  One key tenet of IPPM methods
       is to minimize test traffic effects on user traffic in the production
       network.  Section 5 of [RFC2680] lists the problems with high
       measurement traffic rates ("too much" traffic); the most relevant for
       rate measurement is the tendency for measurement traffic to skew the
       results, followed by the possibility of introducing congestion on the
       access link.  Section 4 of [RFC3148] provides additional
       considerations.  The user of protocols for In-Service testing MUST
       respect these traffic constraints.  Obviously, categories of rate
       measurement methods that use less active test traffic than others
       with similar accuracy are preferred for In-Service testing, and the
       specifications of this memo encourage traffic reduction through
       asymmetric control capabilities.

       Out-of-Service tests where the test path shares no links with In-
       Service user traffic, have none of the congestion or skew concerns.
       Both types should address practical matters common to all test
       efforts, such as conducting measurements within a reasonable time
       from the tester's point of view and ensuring that timestamp accuracy
       is consistent with the precision needed for measurement [RFC2330].
       Out-of-Service tests where some part of the test path is shared with
       In-Service traffic MUST respect the In-Service constraints described
       above.

       The intended metrics to be measured have strong influence over the
       categories of measurement methods required.  For example, using the
       terminology of [RFC5136], it may be possible to measure a path
       capacity metric while In-Service if the level of background (user)
       traffic can be assessed and included in the reported result.

       The measurement architecture MAY be either of one-way (e.g.,
       [RFC4656]) or two-way (e.g., [RFC5357]), but the scale and complexity
       aspects of end-user or aggregated access measurement clearly favor
       two-way (with a low-complexity user-end device and round-trip results
       collection, as found in [RFC5357]).  However, the asymmetric rates of
       many access services mean that the measurement system MUST be able to
       evaluate performance in each direction of transmission.  In the two-

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 6]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       way architecture, both end devices MUST include the ability to launch
       test streams and collect the results of measurements in both (one-
       way) directions of transmission (this requirement is consistent with
       previous protocol specifications, and it is not a unique problem for
       rate measurements).

       The following paragraphs describe features for the roles of test
       packet SENDER, RECEIVER, and results REPORTER.

       SENDER:

       Generate streams of test packets with various characteristics as
       desired (see Section 4).  The SENDER MAY be located at the user end
       of the access path or elsewhere in the production network, such as at
       one end of an aggregated leased-network segment.

       RECEIVER:

       Collect streams of test packets with various characteristics (as
       described above), and make the measurements necessary to support rate
       measurement at the receiving end of an access or aggregated leased-
       network segment.

       REPORTER:

       Use information from test packets and local processes to measure
       delivered packet rates and prepare results in the required format
       (the REPORTER role may be combined with another role, most likely the
       SENDER).

    4.  Measurement Method Categories

       A protocol that addresses the rate measurement problem MUST serve the
       test stream generation and measurement functions (SENDER and
       RECEIVER).  The follow-up phase of analyzing the measurement results
       to produce a report is outside the scope of this problem and memo
       (REPORTER).

       For the purposes of this problem statement, we categorize the many
       possibilities for rate measurement stream generation as follows:

       1.  Packet pairs, with fixed intra-pair packet spacing and fixed or
           random time intervals between pairs in a test stream.

       2.  Multiple streams of packet pairs, with a range of intra-pair
           spacing and inter-pair intervals.

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 7]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       3.  One or more packet ensembles in a test stream, using a fixed
           ensemble size in packets and one or more fixed intra-ensemble
           packet spacings (including zero spacing, meaning that back-to-
           back burst ensembles and constant rate ensembles fall in this
           category).

       4.  One or more packet chirps (a set of packets with specified
           characteristics), where inter-packet spacing typically decreases
           between adjacent packets in the same chirp and each pair of
           packets represents a rate for testing purposes.

       The test protocol SHALL support test packet ensemble generation
       (category 3), as this appears to minimize the demands on measurement
       accuracy.  Other stream generation categories are OPTIONAL.

       For all supported categories, the following is a list of additional
       variables that the protocol(s) MUST be able to specify, control, and
       generate:

       a.  variable payload lengths among packet streams;

       b.  variable length (in packets) among packet streams or ensembles;

       c.  variable IP header markings among packet streams;

       d.  choice of UDP transport and variable port numbers, or choice of
           TCP transport and variable port numbers for two-way architectures
           only, or both (see below for additional requirements on TCP
           transport generation); and

       e.  variable number of packet pairs, ensembles, or streams used in a
           test session.

       The ability to revise these variables during an established test
       session is OPTIONAL, as multiple test sessions could serve the same
       purpose.  Another OPTIONAL feature is the ability to generate streams
       with VLAN tags and other markings.

       For measurement systems employing TCP as the transport protocol, the
       ability to generate specific stream characteristics requires a sender
       with the ability to establish and prime the connection such that the
       desired stream characteristics are allowed.  See [IPPM-METRICS] for
       more background.

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 8]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       Beyond a simple connection handshake and the options establishment,
       an "open-loop" TCP sender requires the SENDER ability to:

       o  generate TCP packets with well-formed headers (all fields valid),
          including Acknowledgement aspects;

       o  produce packet streams at controlled rates and variable inter-
          packet spacings, including packet ensembles (back-to-back at
          server rate); and

       o  continue the configured sending stream characteristics despite all
          control indications except receive-window exhaust.

       The corresponding TCP RECEIVER performs normally, having some ability
       to configure the receive window sufficiently large so as to allow the
       SENDER to transmit at will (up to a configured target).

       It may also be useful (for diagnostic purposes) to provide a control
       for the bulk transfer capacity measurement with fully-specified (and
       congestion-controlled) TCP senders and receivers, as envisioned in
       [RFC3148], but this would be a brute-force assessment, which does not
       follow the conservative tenets of IPPM measurement [RFC2330].

       Measurements for each UDP test packet transferred between SENDER and
       RECEIVER MUST be compliant with the singleton measurement methods
       described in IPPM RFCs [RFC2679][RFC2680].  The timestamp information
       or loss/arrival status for each packet MUST be available for
       communication to the REPORTER function.

    5.  Test Protocol Control and Generation Requirements

       In summary, the test protocol must support the measurement features
       described in the sections above.  This requires:

       1.  Communicating all test variables to the SENDER and RECEIVER;

       2.  Results collection in a one-way architecture;

       3.  Remote device control for both one-way and two-way architectures;
           and

       4.  Asymmetric packet rates in a two-way measurement architecture, or
           coordinated one-way test capabilities with the same effect
           (asymmetric rates may be achieved through directional control of
           packet rate or packet size).

    Morton                        Informational                     [Page 9]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       The ability to control and generate asymmetric rates in a two-way
       architecture is REQUIRED.  Two-way architectures are RECOMMENDED to
       include control and generation capability for both asymmetric and
       symmetric packet sizes because packet size often matters in the scope
       of this problem and test systems SHOULD be equipped to detect
       directional size dependency through comparative measurements.

       Asymmetric packet size control is indicated when the result of a
       measurement may depend on the size of the packets used in each
       direction, i.e., when any of the following conditions hold:

       o  there is a link in the path with asymmetrical capacity in opposite
          directions (in combination with one or more of the conditions
          below, but their presence or specific details may be unknown to
          the tester);

       o  there is a link in the path that aggregates (or divides) packets
          into link-level frames and may have a capacity that depends on
          packet size, rate, or timing;

       o  there is a link in the path where transmission in one direction
          influences performance in the opposite direction;

       o  there is a device in the path where transmission capacity depends
          on packet header processing capacity (in other words, the capacity
          is sensitive to packet size);

       o  the target application stream is nominally MTU size packets in one
          direction versus ACK stream in the other (noting that there are a
          vanishing number of symmetrical rate application streams for which
          rate measurement is wanted or interesting but such streams might
          have some relevance at this time);

       o  the distribution of packet losses is critical to rate assessment;

       and possibly other circumstances revealed by measurements comparing
       streams with symmetrical size and asymmetrical size.

       Implementations may support control and generation for only symmetric
       packet sizes when none of the above conditions hold.

       The test protocol SHOULD enable measurement of the capacity metric
       [RFC5136] either Out-of-Service, In-Service, or both; other metrics
       [RFC5136] are OPTIONAL.

    Morton                        Informational                    [Page 10]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

    6.  Security Considerations

       The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
       live networks are relevant here as well.  See [RFC4656] and
       [RFC5357].

       Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when
       Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in
       [LMAP-FRAMEWORK].

       There may be a serious issue if a proprietary service level agreement
       involved with the access network segment provider were somehow leaked
       in the process of rate measurement.  To address this, test protocols
       SHOULD NOT convey this information in a way that could be discovered
       by unauthorized parties.

    7.  Operational Considerations

       All forms of testing originate network traffic, either through their
       communications for control and results collection, from dedicated
       measurement packet streams, or from a combination of both types of
       traffic.  Testing traffic primarily falls in one of two categories:
       subscriber traffic or network management traffic.  There is an
       ongoing need to engineer networks so that various forms of traffic
       are adequately served, and publication of this memo does not change
       this need.  Service subscribers and authorized users SHOULD obtain
       their network operator's or service provider's permission before
       conducting tests.  Likewise, a service provider or third party SHOULD
       obtain the subscriber's permission to conduct tests, since they might
       temporarily reduce service quality.  The protocol SHOULD communicate
       the permission status once the overall system has obtained it, either
       explicitly or through other means.

       Subscribers, their service providers and network operators, and
       sometimes third parties, all seek to measure network performance.
       Capacity testing with active traffic often affects the packet
       transfer performance of streams traversing shared components of the
       test path, to some degree.  The degradation can be minimized by
       scheduling such tests infrequently and restricting the amount of
       measurement traffic required to assess capacity metrics.  As a
       result, occasional short-duration estimates with minimal traffic are
       preferred to measurements based on frequent file transfers of many
       megabytes with similar accuracy.  New measurement methodologies
       intended for standardization should be evaluated individually for
       potential operational issues.  However, the scheduled frequency of
       testing is as important as the methods used (and schedules are not
       typically submitted for standardization).

    Morton                        Informational                    [Page 11]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

       The new test protocol feature of asymmetrical packet size generation
       in two-way testing is recommended in this memo.  It can appreciably
       reduce the load and packet processing demands of each test and
       therefore reduce the likelihood of degradation in one direction of
       the tested path.  Current IETF standardized test protocols (e.g.,
       [RFC5357] and [RFC6812]) do not possess the asymmetric size
       generation capability with two-way testing.

    8.  References

    8.1.  Normative References

       [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

       [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
                  "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
                  1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.

       [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
                  Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.

       [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
                  Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.

       [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
                  Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
                  (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.

       [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
                  Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
                  RFC 5357, October 2008,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

       [RFC6703]  Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
                  IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
                  RFC 6703, August 2012,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6703>.

    Morton                        Informational                    [Page 12]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

    8.2.  Informative References

       [IPPM-METRICS]
                  Mathis, M. and A. Morton, "Model Based Bulk Performance
                  Metrics", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-
                  metrics-04, March 2015.

       [LMAP-FRAMEWORK]
                  Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
                  Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
                  Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", Work in
                  Progress, draft-ietf-lmap-framework-12, March 2015.

       [RFC3148]  Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
                  Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July
                  2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3148>.

       [RFC5136]  Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
                  RFC 5136, February 2008,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5136>.

       [RFC6812]  Chiba, M., Clemm, A., Medley, S., Salowey, J., Thombare,
                  S., and E. Yedavalli, "Cisco Service-Level Assurance
                  Protocol", RFC 6812, January 2013,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6812>.

       [RFC7398]  Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Crawford, S., Eardley, P., and
                  A. Morton, "A Reference Path and Measurement Points for
                  Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance", RFC
                  7398, February 2015,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7398>.

    Acknowledgements

       Dave McDysan provided comments and text for the aggregated leased use
       case.  Yaakov Stein suggested many considerations to address,
       including the In-Service vs. Out-of-Service distinction and its
       implication on test traffic limits and protocols.  Bill Cerveny,
       Marcelo Bagnulo, Kostas Pentikousis (a persistent reviewer), and
       Joachim Fabini have contributed insightful, clarifying comments that
       made this a better document.  Barry Constantine also provided
       suggestions for clarification.

    Morton                        Informational                    [Page 13]

    RFC 7497                 Rate Problem Statement               April 2015

    Author's Address

       Al Morton
       AT&T Labs
       200 Laurel Avenue South
       Middletown, NJ  07748
       United States

       Phone: +1 732 420 1571
       Fax:   +1 732 368 1192
       EMail: acmorton@att.com
       URI:   http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/

    Morton                        Informational                    [Page 14]