[ippm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 12 March 2020 04:30 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAB73A0D38; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.120.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158398740355.19660.13298873326359739262@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:30:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/9nN2zB0onGIsBltecy7VR9diKYI>
Subject: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Mar 2020 04:30:04 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: No Objection 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position. ** Section 1. Per “There are some applications of the alternate marking method where there are a lot of monitored flows and nodes.” -- Editorial. “alternative marking methods” is lower case but “Alternative Marking methodology” is upper case in other places -- “a lot of monitored” seems colloquial and imprecise and begged for me, “what’s a lot”? (subsequent text says “n and m are high values”, but I also don’t have a sense for what that might be) ** Section 1. Per “Without network clustering, it is possible to apply alternate marking only for all the network or per single flow. Instead, with network clustering, it is possible to use the network clusters partition …”, the phrase “network clusters partition” doesn’t parse for me. ** Section 4. Per “By Using the "traditional" alternate marking method only point-to-point paths can be monitored.”, perhaps say alternative marking per RFC8321 instead of “traditional …”. ** Section 4.1. “In general there are different options: the monitoring network can be obtained by considering all the possible paths for the traffic or also by checking the traffic sometimes and update the graph consequently.” -- Editorial: s/In general there are different options: … by checking the traffic sometimes and update the graph consequently/In general, there are different options: by periodically checking the traffic and updating the graph as appropriate/ -- Is there any guidance on the how to frequently this evaluation of traffic should be? ** Section 5. How generalizable is the flow description? These statements seem inconsistent: -- Section 4 says “Multipoint Alternate Marking enables the performance measurement for multipoint flows selected by identification fields without any constraints (even the entire network production traffic). -- Section 5 says “The flow definition is generalized here, indeed, as described before, a multipoint packet flow is considered and the identification fields of the 5-tuple can be selected without any constraints. ** Section 9. I didn’t understand what this section was saying that is different than Section 10. IMO, the “SDN Controller calibrating for performance measurements” and [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] descriptions seemed like “Examples of applications” covered in Section 10. The title of this section “An Intelligent Performance Management approach” seemed a little “marketing like”.
- [ippm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-… Giuseppe Fioccola