Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt

Gregory Mirsky <> Wed, 21 October 2015 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766A31B2FAF; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aviLEebEek73; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2563C1B2FAD; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f792c6d00000686a-68-56278b05731b
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 13.FB.26730.50B87265; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:38:23 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, "" <>, General Area Review Team <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt
Thread-Index: AdELrnQtmghXe3H1SiKtOvVwCaDy+wAj++WQ
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:38:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoC5rt3qYwa7HchbHj2ZZXH31mcWB yWPJkp9MAYxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBm7eu6xFSyXqOhfmNjAeF64i5GTQ0LAROLQpCnMELaY xIV769m6GLk4hASOMkqcud3DCOEsZ5R4s2QxC0gVm4CRxIuNPewgCRGBQ4wS5xZ9ZAJJCAv4 Smw4eIcNxBYRCJD4MH8xK4RtJLFvy1WwZhYBVYk1izrYQWxeoPpLy1+A2UJA9ov+jWA2p4Cf xMkT+8FmMgKd9P3UGjCbWUBc4taT+UwQpwpILNlzHupsUYmXj/+xQtiKEvv6p7ND1OtILNj9 iQ3C1pZYtvA1M8ReQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk7CwkLbOQtMxC0rKAkWUVI0dpcWpZbrqR4SZGYAwc k2Bz3MG44JPlIUYBDkYlHt4HHmphQqyJZcWVucDA4WBWEuGNeq8eJsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNa fIhRmoNFSZx33oz7oUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGKZfW5OdVtfvNv3dQPyyugK3lQ+gc v+VGJrMYll196Lynufhu5Lu+uKV2OsInzn917teY3GRny7No/sH6I8vWqCkcePWA693314bt dgUMcQvcoje212fbzHzasSvJyYj70oonz4Ler/b7cKRVLs2nx2q64vQjOQXu77V5MxeUbFjN PqWmz59fiaU4I9FQi7moOBEA6CE1830CAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:38:28 -0000

Hi Suresh,
thank you for the most careful review and very helpful comments. Please find my answers in-line and tagged by GIM>>.


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:13 PM
To:; General Area Review Team
Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015/10/20
IESG Telechat date: 2015/10/22

Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard but I do have some comments that you may wish to address.


* MBZ is not expanded. I understand this should expand to "Must Be Zero" and it MUST be set to zero by senders and MUST be ignored by receivers. It makes sense to add this to the terminology section or before first use.
GIM>> MBZ is used only in figures that reflect updates to formats defined in RFC 5357. None of fields defined in RFC 5357 referenced in this proposal and their identification in the figures is the same as in RFC 5357. I think it may be confusing to those familiar with RFC 5357 to see "Must Be Zero" instead of MBZ in figures.

* Please cite as references RFC2474 for the DSCP field and RFC3168 for ECN.
GIM>> Thank you, will add references and send diff for review.

* Section 2.2.1:

"the first six bits of the Differentiated Service field"

Not sure if this "first" qualification is required as RFC2474 defines the DSCP field to be *exactly* 6 bits long. I have a similar issue with the word "following" in the definition of the ECN field as they are two separate fields.
GIM>> Al suggested re-wording that, in my view, makes it clear and unambiguous:
   o  the six (least-significant) bits of the Differentiated Service
      field MUST be copied from received Session-Sender test packet into
      Sender DSCP (S-DSCP) field;

* Section 2.2.2: Figure 4 seems to be incomplete and it has no mention of either DSCP or ECN. Is this correct? Probably would also explain where the 28 byte padding requirement comes from.
GIM>> Figure 4 reflects impact of DSCP and ECM Monitoring on test packet transmitted by a Session-Sender that supports RFC 6038. RFC 6038 states that in order to support Symmetrical Size and/or Reflects Octets modes Session-Sender must append at least 27 octet-long Packet Padding. Because the DSCP and ECM Monitoring extension requires Session-Reflector to copy additional octet, the minimal size of Packet Padding to support RFC 6038 must be 28 octets.


* Section 2.2.1

s/MUST extracts/MUST extract/
GIM>> Done.