Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00

<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Wed, 07 January 2015 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EF61A89FD for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:41:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 REZMbo7oWu8T for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3E11A8A03 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from q4de8psa169.blf.telekom.de ([10.151.13.200]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2015 13:40:45 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,714,1413237600"; d="scan'208,217";a="736542333"
Received: from he113676.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.29]) by q4de8psazkj.blf.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 07 Jan 2015 13:40:45 +0100
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113676.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:40:45 +0100
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: ippm@wjcerveny.com, acmorton@att.com
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:40:44 +0100
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00
Thread-Index: AdApyLUzOrAm1iNQRqu8LIjps0K7OgAhUu4g
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50439BD1A13@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <F74FA593-0784-47F8-BE68-09AF1C202C54@wjcerveny.com>
In-Reply-To: <F74FA593-0784-47F8-BE68-09AF1C202C54@wjcerveny.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50439BD1A13HE111643EMEA1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/5LYTizB5aun95RgLQlr68th8pzw
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 12:41:21 -0000

Bill, Al

thanks. both drafts read good and I hope they will get RFC's soon.

I however missed one QoS related point during an earlier review I made:

3.6 Methodologies:

   As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
   on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
   precedence).

If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6.

3.8.1. Type-P

    . . .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 precedence or RSVP) changes. . .

If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6.

And the same comment also relates to draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00:

2.6 Methodologies:

   As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
   on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
   precedence).

If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6.

2.8.1 Type-P

   . . 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 precedence or RSVP) changes...

If precedence refers to Type of Service, which has been changed to DSCP meanwhile, then precedence should be changed to DSCP (and/or ECN codepoint) or DS field. There is no IP precedence specified for IPv6.

And one nit:

7. RFC 2680 bis

...9.

No content.

Otherwise my comment is go ahead with both drafts.

Regards,

Ruediger



Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 16:52
An: ippm@ietf.org
Betreff: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00

As discussed at the IETF meeting, drafts draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00 (A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM) and draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00 (A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM) are ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC). As such, these documents will be in WGLC until Friday, January 23, 2014.

Please send comments to ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>, including statements that you've reviewed the document and are okay with sending it up to the IESG for publication.

For those new to IETF process, the WGLC process is discussed at:
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-7.4
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6174#section-4.2.7

Basic information on the documents is below.

       Title           : A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM
       Authors         : Guy Almes
                         Sunil Kalidindi
                         Matt Zekauskas
                         Al Morton
            Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00.txt
            Pages           : 24
            Date            : 2014-10-23

Abstract:
  This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
  packets across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and
  discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is
  assumed to be familiar with that document.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00

       Title           : A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
       Authors         : Guy Almes
                         Sunil Kalidindi
                         Matt Zekauskas
                         Al Morton
            Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00.txt
            Pages           : 19
            Date            : 2014-10-23

Abstract:
  This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
  across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and discussed
  in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
  familiar with that document.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00

Regards,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM WG Co-chair