[ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2022 20:16 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037013A16F8 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lA_bTrp3JaVc for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2c]) (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 218B73A16FE for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com with SMTP id w67so1220645vkw.6 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wjd2GG/RqnEVP0VqLQKk4m2ZUO/kRBZtMR5Bu0QWS0g=; b=ju8ASjpM3/oHDo+1Yb5ClDHvXe7RhROMTW4QeksqPaIvbv1I//xZ/B1B4+QNIIRzxR YKkZP984IUpMSAuznodJJ4MeRlzpwSI6Q/fXdGaSpbN0mMfGFAApIMZ9f+gZZwKFi19R GxpBnsX4IV0hggFC6fwD0puD0hpvDOBmeq1IplydbP4rrCDv/Vb1u6RbpZOF2T/s+GY2 nqbEGBB/gVciuyWS8DXkGQwhRuOe8rcswa4/+O4l96c7OEbmbS1kL1y8HF2gs0la6J5T o/XPyDD0U7W2ku+AxBJzHMc1wc0U+nfQQOS/s48jzFWo6yf0QEK3462DC2pfafPHV86Z bvNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wjd2GG/RqnEVP0VqLQKk4m2ZUO/kRBZtMR5Bu0QWS0g=; b=VhUvps+wkgyQcvudkoleRv6gRTHB2aYLoCyxLZioR/OrQDW5i0VSmHHtMH/0SOMXhk 8pDQT5mCi/UVLh0WN2OeXyhiKnDQAdVzXoUZKPQU66JTp14PV/kCmmCCIXPFb5r0CAHY slmNfdCgj8NLPX4dnAYzv3TxziTnRV1vnHp0C4XS2b0QThTcqQEuuMS6qtp1Ii/5nAyd sjFEmsxNuwKpO4Or6escsRHYIFgRGqIwnwk6LYxLPSxCFzaztkYThw+s5mwp2u1AvWAA kZGDI64Zf/P1Ze/hFchznkBa3oThGB8czjr02msWcbj+A99+KAivljDYW9eAdKtc/ljY 9lpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LfnccW+Z9Tl8Y410e//e5xPQx+EhOoRAsc/VNYgX4Or8fmH1H tOqCU/LRSa3RHB+YPghQqkjZeB6dzGyOfcp2BXykna0UymU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHD3Woz6gVPGMG7iB/LoQoh0y5dQjcVboruopBX95aFt0YheZG7JjqMH7/IFnx4evuCEiWzmvKBSirCC7dC0U=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:2228:b0:32d:e4e:a79a with SMTP id bb40-20020a056122222800b0032d0e4ea79amr5475947vkb.27.1649362607471; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:16:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQHrH7onttT6MV+DGuM24cQW99pZ83wOAK_88BcAP43Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052fe1705dc162838"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/3OUAaqAx5Os03keckLRznrOihNw>
Subject: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 20:16:51 -0000

Hello IPPM,

You may recall that there was a need to progress RFC8321 and RFC8889 from
Experimental to Proposed Standard. There was a feeling that the update
would be trivial and we could therefore do it as an AD sponsored document.

I've done 3 rounds of AD review and I've seen the need to substantially
adjust the scope of these documents and tweak the design in places. The
changes are not revolutionary, but I'm a non-practitioner and have driven
some design changes with minimal review. At this point I think it's
important to get good IPPM review; if we're going to do that anyway, we
might as well do the (expedited) working group process so that there's no
confusion as to why IPPM didn't formally review an update to its own

So, as first step, I invite the working group to adopt these two drafts:
Any objections to adoption, as always, should be to the value of doing the
work at all, and the general direction of the drafts. I hope to follow up
the adoption call with an immediate WGLC to shake out any detailed
objections, though we will take as long as we need to address concerns that
people have.

I invite you to consult the changelogs on both of these documents, which
are not long, to get a sense of what we've done.

For those of you who like diffs, there was a big reorganization between
draft-02 and -03 that is hard to follow in a diff. So here is a set of
diffs that exclude the -02 to -03 transition:


I believe it's up to the chairs to start the adoption call. If people are
good about reading the document during WGLC, I would like to think we could
be done before IETF 114.

Your friendly Area Director,