Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Re-sending to include IPPM-list (not in .all alias)
to give the full context:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 2:45 PM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; [e-mail]; General
> Area Review Team
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> Please see replies and proposed resolutions below.
> 
> regards,
> Al
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 3:45 AM
> > To: [e-mail]; General Area Review Team
> > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
> >
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> > you may receive.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03.txt
> > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> > Review Date: 2015-07-31
> > IETF LC End Date: 2015-08-11
> > IESG Telechat date:
> >
> > Summary: Ready with issues
> > --------
> >
> > Major issue:
> > ------------
> >
> > The draft does not mention the IP version.  RFC 2330 states that it
> > applies to IPv4 only (section 15) and uses terminology that only
> > applies to IPv4. At the very minimum, the current draft needs to state
> > its limited applicability. I would be much happier if it explained how
> > it applies to IPv6.
> [ACM]
> In this update, we added an explicit reference to Section 15 of RFC 2330
> on the requirements for standard-formed packets (note: most, but not
> all, usage of "standard-formed" in RFC2330 is hyphenated). I suggest
> that we note the limitation of the current reference in the text:
> 
> + The packet is standard-formed, the default criteria for all metric
>   definitions defined in Section 15 of [RFC2330], otherwise the packet
>   will be deemed lost. Note: At this time, the definition of standard-formed
>   packets only applies to IPv4.
> 
> Further, I propose that we begin the process of updating this section of
> RFC 2330 immediately. This way, the IPv6 coverage will extend to all
> IPPM RFCs, especially RFC2680bis which is also in IETF Last Call.
> 
> 
> >
> > Minor issues:
> > -------------
> >
> > In sections 3.6 and 3.8.1 there are passing references to the diffserv
> > code point. I think that the ECN bits should be mentioned too: their
> > setting could also affect router processing time. ECN is a bit tricky as
> > it might change on the fly.
> 
> [ACM]
> So can DSCP if the packet is re-marked, as you know well.
> We can mention ECN in section 3.8.1 (the original text referred to the
> TOS field, so what you read was already updated), with further revisions
> below:
> 
> The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP),
> port number, size, or arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field
> [RFC2780], ECN [RFC3168] or RSVP) changes. The exact Type-P used to make
> the measurements MUST be accurately reported.
> 
> But...
> 
> >
> > Along the same lines, should Router Alert be mentioned? And for IPv6
> > applicability, any hop-by-hop options should certainly be mentioned.
> 
> [ACM]
> RFC 2330, Section 13 says:
>    A fundamental property of many Internet metrics is that the value of
>    the metric depends on the type of IP packet(s) used to make the
>    measurement.
>    ... < some IPv4-centric examples, then > ...
>    Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a
>    "packet of type P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly
>    defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially
>    defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic.
> 
> If we seek to identify several more distinctions for "packets of Type-P",
> then I would prefer to update the RFC 2330 Framework Section 13 on
> this topic, so it's more widely applicable and less IPv4-centric.
> I'll take immediate steps to accomplish this update.