Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01.txt
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Sun, 01 November 2015 02:11 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
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 CA5191B506B; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 r7jb0Zio6f5G; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D631B324A; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F0C12298C; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:07:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6767E4833; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:07:16 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:07:16 -0400
Thread-Topic: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdEDjlJTFtidDxnZTk+l/Fk9eoZQbwQslt1A
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D0BB6ADAF70@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <20151010190303.13732.8136.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151010190303.13732.8136.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/BTph1BbbpO_kJXmB8ChQxMw42-8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01.txt
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: <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: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:11:40 -0000
Hi Nalini, Robert and Mike, a few comments on: > Title : IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) > Destination Option > Authors : Nalini Elkins > Robert Hamilton > Michael S. Ackermann > Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01.txt > Pages : 28 > Date : 2015-10-10 > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 > Let's discuss this week when we get a chance... [ACM] First sentence suggestion 1 Background To assess performance problems, measurements based on optional sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet. suggest: To assess performance and diagnose problems, measurements based on optional... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THEN: An implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Options extension header has been proposed in a companion document. [ACM] This is all one doc now, right? [ACM] In section 1.6, you give one circumstance where the PDM DOH won't work for the mixed v4 v6 network in transition. That's a good limitation to make clear. When we discussed the possibility of header extension removal in paragraph 4 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01#section-3 I think we may have mentioned that DOH might be removed by some intermediate nodes today, and this seems to be another case where headers might be removed. Although this is inconsistent with recommendations in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7045 it may be worth mentioning as a possible pit-fall related to early deployment of IPv6. [ACM] in 2.1 Round-Trip Delay Round-trip *Network* delay is the delay for packet transfer from a source host to a destination host and then back to the source host. This measurement has been defined, and the advantages and disadvantages discussed in "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM" [RFC2681]. It would be worthwhile to mention that the RFC 2681 RT delay excludes the destination host processing time, which is a quantity you want to measure, and keep separate from RT delay. [ACM] Section 3.3 Header placement the first bullet is an "OR" - Before the upper-layer header or the ESP header. Then I see the DOH listed twice, but it is portrayed in in the figure of Section 3.4 as an option to have the header in BOTH, * = if present, could be before ESP, after ESP, or both Suggest to make *both* in these sections consistent. Al
- [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-optio… internet-drafts
- [ippm] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-o… nalini.elkins
- Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-o… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)