Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 20 August 2021 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4DC3A152F for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQcUy6gWWzLD for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11563A152D for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id h29so10111681ila.2 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=93hfOV/Om0YRjwDxWuL/sn6d5+mnrPtvI+QLlyb10vw=; b=hrNFforPsbOFtChM4wUOR5w1MP4fIPwPwqV45OokNxIaRUdIefTXjf9/sDIBLoXmBk q1VsPEi3HbMKx/0cnj330d359ZKIesVMhKeDYReVQ3cSd3FCL/CcWixCwKGtL1QpjUNe 5CrRoNYzoMDFNU0+2s7FpYWXuYGlHIRnYenI8PQh5VGgA0U5Q0yyLd9pFGRyydbPuKu3 NbOR4ZxruO+Gy3dgCeEOXNHEcDvAzTDFxFSaKwT173N/abPyKgCOZU1LcWYjhX5dFAzV BbGqIchVQtQZ4sYWju3ozBy47sY+euS1BmqjAa6buspSbqH7R1zWxWfInOXVtUVYMjk/ fasg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=93hfOV/Om0YRjwDxWuL/sn6d5+mnrPtvI+QLlyb10vw=; b=lVteH+o1SiaOlae2PCrtKc8Az2ud4xk9XXNaX195PJ4VBhQFB+pn05mMkZLJXvBcYn 3QEtFeFioMXnWyUUshOTduEhWQz4C2NhDX/+jRq0KXau/0ZgtllJplxKbNlYG0S9IC98 pv2OPk+AjUhKQnocX/J0xVtqlEPI/FpIZ5nB95+NUyOwRMGeNDe5zYgcS9DMtRmH/XoM qQChx7tu9+9GK+cQadCNwG6MUrWpNPHAJDCZWROUVLmKy7oMK4ewOfbWheSMdeB9vq58 8PpGGeTZA/UuwBtNRxEgzc1tea5pHlKTYrjX+szuc7hbCivj3ChgNR2pzvN+C9BUFHDU EyWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OV5XxJalX1EXFORXiHvp2I3DD0UTDy4KBcAOsLz7jOM3H/frS iN8Z7HNo71H/0AR+1Yz0tKD6liZ3u5Al72IqIypXy5xQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqUVAalVGgRyHawRYdkH188OCqESWUc/v4CcPX/uQ2vt2UhSsx07wCOWoM5O/DjWXwXbomyIeZmLp5oJiDIpY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:660e:: with SMTP id a14mr14251463ilc.249.1629477075310; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com> <d392b3339899499590e0d1c9e7a761a0@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra>
In-Reply-To: <d392b3339899499590e0d1c9e7a761a0@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:31:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxS-zLVGO7oYLf+aRhWmYLg4FOzZ1cvTRDnx0kmQ2-_44Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFuIFBhbmco6IGU6YCa6ZuG5Zui5Lit5Zu96IGU6YCa56CU56m26ZmiLeacrOmDqCk=?= <pangran@chinaunicom.cn>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e5d0605ca003233"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/21ecVNKZYdGyxlvlFO4Ra1Q4QC8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:31:23 -0000

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) <
pangran@chinaunicom.cn> 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 <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> *Date:* 2021-08-13 02:26
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *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 hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn,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 hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from
> this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue
> of our.
>