Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05

Greg Mirsky <> Thu, 15 August 2019 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B48C1200CC; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YKH7W4h2fT9x; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB861200C7; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b17so2553509lff.7; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4s67UEo9ggV2ysVwet+yJDIV00v3OvPRn/66NkhMol0=; b=FtHFC3MK0tAutw4x9SlKO0+IWwHFnd8+1s0ja2YIOAkzEOGIa1amNncIiTVK1cgdx6 GeyI3zi2E/ksWDjpBA0/yAwiFkiCbpYOnjGfJ0xNbRhNnbxNIyUfHavekCMUNSIOAuvn dh/CiumSUXOl02/PCjxnf3d7f7sXT4Azur/EiE4jntSm3HeKcxG/yPrajazAAP1xDkCE 2fPTiWODRcq6bc0QB/wvjpUDqhnb2IcRIpc07/3Qg8lCPB+ol8dpkPblvI512fvkSASt X6fIj4nCzJf8oQA1NWhO1kMoxNsktEAcVfIwKfuAuZbN2sJXQACb+ZcCzkTxk5ZAsvZq LXSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4s67UEo9ggV2ysVwet+yJDIV00v3OvPRn/66NkhMol0=; b=Si87jKEwnW4RRakTMtqyjJ7py4zPBAXLEO4DCAc6sUDWCEKHred1ZwBCOivZ+hbRXT 5BAMCDA+xI1C00pOZqJHYSr0f8leMkz0f8XSHphIzuBAdpxRD6W9ykCzm/IQ2tiKguw7 NhayTL7WBpgbhqxgAdlgO2fT3Q5K5eP74Eif0MF9KSc1Fj7lz81lWua8exRL0Kyp7vBg qeI7L9/dHxttQvWuryIaozA2rBuO6fc2471O6bHHJu0bdCkPCC7Nlq2N1pv/Cl01X1JM eRsUrgFt4tqhx4efXwYTYEvQy414UgnNE/X0u26CL8+BQ27IvXGdU2GK/VFu6NSiARr7 t/oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX7y796PnX1Y4yEtFodHJrLDlyuRC4VkxvC9esVTdj7HrHE4fPs SkEdpKhS+73ooQawM7aZqRAVGlJsByLithlyxL8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygqbE4RBA6fFB6QFMsMbt/JwynwnlyHXCQsOFsuZRvgK6BQdqtSTr+n9+d/mKcaDi7zbEFD9w8ktkNr19BDbk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c887:: with SMTP id y129mr3370837lff.73.1565902430558; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:53:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>, BIER WG <>
Cc: BIER WG Chairs <>,, Giuseppe Fioccola <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020612205902e1217"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:53:58 -0000

Hi Alvaro, et al.,
I'd like to resume our discussion of the remaining questions from the AD's
review of the document. From the report at the meeting in Montreal these
were captured as:

   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 -
   3. Naming flags:
      - L(oss)/D(elay) vs. S(ingle)/D(ouble)

I am not sure what the best way to proceed with the discussion and how to
arrive at the resolution of these questions. I hope WG Chairs can guide us

Alvaro, you've suggested to add to the Operational Considerations section
text to guide operators in choosing timing parameters, e.g., the duration
of a batch of marked packets. Would the following text be acceptable:
   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.


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:17 AM Alvaro Retana <>;

> Thanks!
> On July 18, 2019 at 5:48:33 PM, Greg Mirsky ( wrote:
> much appreciate your feedback on the updated slides.