Re: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Sat, 04 September 2021 07:09 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 DF7503A1D36 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 00:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VPL1Sod-ZRGc for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 00:08:57 -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 5C7413A1D34 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 00:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4H1m1j4Rvhz67YS6; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 15:07:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:08:54 +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 15.01.2308.008; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:08:54 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis
Thread-Index: AQHXoNyJrgu91InVX06THGAJcAf2WKuTddsg
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 07:08:54 +0000
Message-ID: <47ed2045398f48579a5251b40dabfceb@huawei.com>
References: <CAM4esxRP=bp7LyQZ1_B5_hcjYgFs5bFnuKm-keWp5yDS_X7Lxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxRP=bp7LyQZ1_B5_hcjYgFs5bFnuKm-keWp5yDS_X7Lxg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.24.221]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_47ed2045398f48579a5251b40dabfcebhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/CK_mJeq_BK5LpTDPrlT923Ycrds>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis
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: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 07:09:02 -0000

Hi Martin, All,
I can surely start working on a bis document and lead it together with those who already expressed interest.
I’m just wondering if the new I-D on RFC8321bis and RFC8889bis can be submitted directly to IESG as individual submission with the help of a sponsoring AD or as IPPM WG document.
What's your thought?

Regards,

Giuseppe


From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 5:55 PM
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Hello IPPM,

Last Call on the status change still has some way to run, but there is already quite a bit of resistance to doing this without a bis document.

Consider this a formal invitation to get the process started. A bis document should eliminate both experiment-related boilerplate, and any bits of the design that we don't feel are mature enough for Proposed Standard.

Submit a -00!
Thanks
Martin