Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Thanks all,

I'm hearing strong consensus that 8321 should be a PS and somewhat weaker
support for 8889, but no dissents.

If anyone has serious concerns, this would be a good time to say so.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:02 AM Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Martin and WG,
>
> The alt-mk described in RFC8321/8889 has been deployed in some of our
> networks.
>
> It works well.
>
> So I would like the WG consider elevate them to proposed standard.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Pang Ran.
>
>
> *From:* Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 2021-08-13 02:26
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
> Hello IPPM,
>
> (with AD hat on)
>
> The IESG is currently considering
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
> which is the implementation of RFC 8321
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8321.html> and 8889
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8889.html> techniques in an IPv6
> framework. IIUC, this is very much how things are "supposed to work" --
> measurement definitions and methodology are done by IPPM, and the
> protocol-specific instantiations are in the respective working groups.
>
> However, there are complications in that 8321 and 8889 are Experimental
> RFCs, and the ipv6-alt-mark draft is a Proposed Standard. This has resulted
> in text from 8321/8889 going into ipv6-alt-mark so that it can be elevated
> to PS. I'm told that, if the status quo holds, other drafts will reference
> ipv6-alt-mark to avoid a downref. This seems suboptimal.
>
> I would prefer that *we take one of the two following actions*:
> 1) If the WG has consensus that we are comfortable that there is enough
> experience with 8321 and/or 8889 to elevate them to PS, I can initiate a
> document action to change their status.
>
> 2) If there is no such consensus, ipv6-alt-mark should be Experimental.
>
> In either case, the draft can probably lose some of the duplicate text.
>
> Logically, there is a third option -- that the bits of the RFCs copied in
> the draft are mature enough to be a standard, but that the others aren't.
> Though I'm not an expert, I doubt this is the case. But if people believe
> it to be true, we'll have to come up with new options.
>
> I would be grateful for the working group's thoughts about these documents
> and the ideas therein. Is it reasonable for people to read and reflect on
> this by 26 August (2 weeks from today?)
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> 如果您错误接收了该邮件，请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 [e-mail]，即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。
> If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by
> e-mail. Please reply to [e-mail] ,you can unsubscribe from
> this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue
> of our.
>