[Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
we've worked on addressing the comments received from our AD and much
appreciate your feedback, questions, and suggestion. Some questions raised
by Alvaro in AD's review are yet to be closed
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/S2Bp2YDgVEmyLaGhX6HxxVNnuMs/>:
   1. Track: Experimental, Informational, or Standard?
      - RFC 8321 is Experimental. Alvaro has pointed that “given that
      rfc8321 is not mature enough, what should be the Status of this
document:
      Experimental or Informational?”
   2. Relationship to draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements:
      - Added reference is the right step but not enough
      - If WG is resolute to publish draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements, it
      should progress at least in-step with this draft
      - Using the OAM field for Marking Method
      - Could there be other interpretations and use of the OAM field of
      BIER header or only for the Alt.Marking method?
      - If the interpretation of the OAM field is only as defined in this
      draft, then it must be marked as update of RFC 8296.
      -  In any case, IANA Considerations section doesn’t make sense -
      remove
   3. Naming flags:
      - L(oss)/D(elay) vs. S(ingle)/D(ouble)
A new text has been added to clarify an operational aspect of using the
Alternate Marking method in a BIER domain:
NEW TEXT:
   Selection of a time interval to switch the marking of a batch of
   packets should be based on the service requirements.  In the course
   of the regular operation, reports, including performance metrics like
   packet loss ratio, packet delay, and inter-packet delay variation,
   are logged every 15 minutes.  Thus, it is reasonable to maintain the
   duration of the measurement interval at 5 minutes with 100
   measurements per each interval.  To support these measurements,
   marking of the packet batch is switched every 3 seconds.  In case
   when performance metrics are required in near-real-time, the duration
   interval of a single batch of identically marked packets will be in
   the range of tens of milliseconds.

 The authors are looking forward to working on progressing this
specification.

Regards,
Greg

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:53 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>, Lianshu Zheng <
[e-mail]>, Mach Chen <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <
[e-mail]>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam
Revision:       09
Title:          Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer
Document date:  2020-12-02
Group:          bier
Pages:          9
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam/
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09

Abstract:
   This document describes the applicability of a hybrid performance
   measurement method for packet loss and packet delay measurements of a
   multicast service through a Bit Index Explicit Replication domain.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat