[ippm] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-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-rfc8321bis/



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

Sorry, another discuss, but hopefully a trivial one to resolve.

I found this text to be a unclear regarding passive vs hybrid:

   Therefore, the Alternate-Marking Method could be considered Hybrid or
   Passive, depending on the case.  In the case where the marking method
   is obtained by changing existing field values of the packets the
   technique is Hybrid.  In the case where the marking field is
   dedicated, reserved, and included in the protocol specification, the
   Alternate-Marking technique can be considered as Passive.

Please can you clarify the third sentence, to clarify that the marking is done
at source, or at least outside the controlled domain?  I.e., I presume that
even if there were some reserved bits in the protocol header for colouring
packets, that were then written at the edge of the controlled domain, then this
would be a active rather than passive measurement?

Thanks,
Rob