Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Wed, 03 August 2022 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 CE166C16ECB9; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xAsvdwM1qeII; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 966ACC13CCD9; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LyPNb1mrVz686VG; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:57:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:02:43 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:02:43 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org>, "tpauly@apple.com" <tpauly@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHYlWvkZGY/ezE3CU6Kz8OX3g2cMa164YTAgCErpoCAAOYzEA==
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:02:43 +0000
Message-ID: <10d93d55c7244bbb9668a9c97132895d@huawei.com>
References: <165757435591.4931.9146839768451175920@ietfa.amsl.com> <820c7f7149a0406b91feedaf5ad8d9c7@huawei.com> <CAMMESsxFP_qKsVEoT_NbqS-VOc1L1TvxRocMyLRrp6tWoKiTbQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxFP_qKsVEoT_NbqS-VOc1L1TvxRocMyLRrp6tWoKiTbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.216.37]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10d93d55c7244bbb9668a9c97132895dhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/5rtc-QOxs7wO2hqBidmIzg-JQ9Y>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 08:02:49 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
Thanks also for reviewing this document.

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:17 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
Cc: ippm@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org; tpauly@apple.com
Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi!

I also reviewed the latest version of this draft and I’m clearing my DISCUSS.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On July 12, 2022 at 12:00:17 PM, Giuseppe Fioccola (giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com<mailto:giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks again for your review.
Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
I will publish a new version to address your comments.

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:19 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org>; ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>; tpauly@apple.com<mailto:tpauly@apple.com>
Subject: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

§9 ("Results of the Multipoint Alternate Marking Experiment") makes several
recommendations about the use of one or two flag bits:

One flag: packet loss measurement SHOULD be done as described in
Section 6 by applying the network clustering partition described
in Section 5. While delay measurement MAY be done according to
the Mean delay calculation representative of the multipoint path,
as described in Section 7.1.1. Single-marking method based on the
first/last packet of the interval cannot be applied, as mentioned
in Section 7.2.1.

Two flags: packet loss measurement SHOULD be done as described in
Section 6 by applying the network clustering partition described
in Section 5. While delay measurement SHOULD be done on a single
packet basis according to double-marking method Section 7.2.1. In
this case the Mean delay calculation (Section 7.1.1) MAY also be
used as a representative value of a multipoint path.

One flag and hash-based selection: packet loss measurement SHOULD
be done as described in Section 6 by applying the network
clustering partition described in Section 5. Hash-based selection
methodologies, introduced in Section 7.2.2, MAY be used for delay
measurement.

These recommendations are good, as they are the result of experimentation.
However, they don't provide any deployment or operational guidelines of when
it is ok to follow them and when it isn't. For example, for the one flag case,
when it is ok to not measure packet loss as described in §6? Why is the use
of that mechanism only recommended and not required?

I have the same questions for all the recommendations and optional indications
in the text above. To clear this DISCUSS I expect deployment or operational
recommendations that can be used as implementation/deployment guidance.

[GF]: Similarly to RFC8321bis, I will surely add more details. Regarding the packet loss measurement SHOULD can be replaced with MUST since it is the only option for multipoint measurements. Regarding the delay measurements, there are some considerations to take into account in order to provide guidelines, such as the number of flags available, the kind of information needed, the computational resources (e.g. to implement hashing selection).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Roman's DISCUSS position and have a related question about this text
in §9:

The Multipoint Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED only for
controlled domains, as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

When is it ok to use the Multipoint Alternate Marking Method in any other
deployment? IOW, given the definition of a controlled domain in rfc8321bis,
why is its use only recommended and not required?

Note that if this consideration depends entirely on rfc8321bis, you may be able
to refer to it and eliminate the Normative language.

[I did not include this point as a DISCUSS because I expect it to be solved
when Roman's concern is addressed.]

[GF]: Yes it is similar to RFC8321bis. I will refer to it or just replace that sentence with: "The Multipoint Alternate Marking Method MUST only be applied to controlled domains."