[ippm] AD Review #2 of RFC8321bis

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 15 February 2022 22:01 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 AE7D63A09A4; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8Ej-Bw78MhXw; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2b]) (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 83D193A09A3; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com with SMTP id j201so241193vke.11; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UqTiGXnVmyDy2Aq79MKlLVE8ctWt9sHInQ7H4W/tK14=; b=Q45WYGegLJaaSzt/o9zKccvwfZXSUUyfP1xV4C/Y+dEOqCDXuqNe5CnxzaqmpDPOgz FoMCYBPFVI6yMX6TcFEI7i/O9sZHy5rA8XhVWTuaywsqKNbCgGpy2LFi6CAKPBvFTN99 bIAekq8ji3O/Y/KIDu2GRLjsIxS1DM5d0HirSXHqdiafo04R2/v0yr+n4tTXbEJaBPmx X4RxQypPdGIbB3LYhbZQnDLHTyLy7OeFGgMWbMbKeBrYNwc508noiMmU2FxMGOqGmhvK WR2xJRTMFEtjbvnPFu5SX6tKgQvRRqrVt2PH2g79qs9PTkbdrdcifjUWgZlXp/T9mQ1L 2zQQ==
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:cc; bh=UqTiGXnVmyDy2Aq79MKlLVE8ctWt9sHInQ7H4W/tK14=; b=BRs6Wm5xCfnYlhAEp6KlAuLsO21tzSoRc+t1Av8GnjE/S9uGm+bz6/u7liRmVGpOds hNJpAEAhxiqQFaLJ/eaTeo0GFxpVoqHUzu+PDqIwxM1a2yyrJq7IcM8EUmsZ5p2haIsV 5ubQqy8Ffqk7SmpKsLM5D6TwTNbxp7Re3HHSYaZIgxNLloH/XSMUHpw2Zzd74J4kMVqG X2PZka3H+1h8KMByLVOYU4TETd4/fCe0zXgEmh58l1rIA4fQaAjEsnRa7J/KzGrbYwCO 67H8csWVv/aZXBbeBfmKdvUVN59a3s245Jq7DTPxlwwwAfN2Y2z6zRxuQp2xETkcK7Rs fh9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530IdhfRQEhmbz/sstLb9jMCb0lEsak+vo3/fFw7g6AJNtA5XIaT TKYB4+lUEwC/Zr+KqTMFAm19XIwmrJzNg0NoxJqYc15y
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwX6khKZaa0L+n0ENf87nJVZRGOQMnpIriPgsONAuXcs1VfiQCWna3Lk8yUzN4XxkkgTqkxW5Fj1u0Nk0esDI0=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:aa4d:: with SMTP id t74mr470731vke.27.1644962492736; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:01:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQ8sFwHfuEai3jUt8uApFh4gQ+Yr76xX6D+JVNZMcMyhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis.all@ietf.org
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c6a1705d815ad3e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/5cmaKdwpKgRDRTEDyGRw5KMDsjE>
Subject: [ippm] AD Review #2 of RFC8321bis
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: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:01:44 -0000

Hi Giuseppe,

This is looking good.

1) The one conceptual problem I'm having is what it means for a packet to
be "unmarked". If marking involves encapsulation, no problem: some packets
can simply not be encapsulated, or one can omit the header option or
whatever. But if it's passive measurement because there's a bit in the
header, this bit has to be set to something, right?  So how would one
mediate between flows that are to be measured or not measured in the latter

2) Some minor rewording of the new fragmentation language in section 4.4:

Nodes that fragment packets within the measurement domain MUST NOT
replicate marks, but SHOULD mark the first fragment if they have the

capability to do so.


Nodes that fragment packets within the measurement domain SHOULD, if

they have the capability to do so, ensure that only one resulting

fragment carries the marking bit(s) of the original packet. Failure

to do so can introduce errors into the measurement.

I would propose the following steps.

A) address these points and publish draft-02. We'll save the diff to show
the delta between 8321 and 8321 bis.

B) Immediately reorganize the document as you intend and publish draft-03.

Then we'll take it through IETF Last Call.