Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-route-09: (with COMMENT) - extract: same flow

[[e-mail]]

Al, Ben,

thanks for extensive reading and discussion and for proposed resolutions. Al asked for what others say in one point:

> 
>    o  TCP case: For IPv4, the fields Src, Dst, port-Src, port_Dst,
>       sequence number, and Diffserv Field SHOULD be the same.  For IPv6,
>       the field FlowLabel, Src and Dst SHOULD be the same.
> 
> Are we happy to pair "to maintain the same flow" (previous paragraph)
> with "SHOULD be the same" (here, and subsequent bullet points)?
[acm] 
There are ways to conduct valid measurements with SHOULD, IMO, but I see how MUST results in simplification.  Let's see what others say about this; no change proposed yet.

[RG] The set of packet information to base a load-sharing decision might be defined differently by a chain of nodes on an end-to-end path. Different operators may have different preferences and a Layer 4 device my base its decisions on other parameters than a core-router. The other way around: would a MUST kind of imply that we were able to offer a reference which of the mentioned fields specify a flow (we can not and we should not, I think)? Leaving it as a recommendation, and yes, a serious one, is better, I think. Thought the other way around: I some cases, there may be limited flexibility in flow definitions at some nodes along a path, and it may be useful.

Regards,

Ruediger