[ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 24 December 2021 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655563A0E66 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSTeAdfdfjmW for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A333F3A0E67 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JKryT5nrrz7R0HR; Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:45:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1BO2jF3D077793; Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:45:15 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:45:15 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:45:15 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af961c5343b608c6173
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202112241045151378136@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1BO2jF3D077793
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04- with ID 61C53441.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1640313921/4JKryT5nrrz7R0HR/61C53441.000/[]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 61C53441.000/4JKryT5nrrz7R0HR
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/E1dnE3rkCp3ioxKbknXC7z0oHwI>
Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01
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: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 02:45:30 -0000

Hi Giuseppe,

I noticed in the -01 revision you added that 
"The switching after a fixed number of packets is an additional possibility but its detailed specification is out of scope."
I like this change, it gives the clear practical direction on fixed-timer method, as well as reserving the possibility for someone to develop details based on fixed-number method.
I suggest to apply the similar description on Single-Marking Methodology defined in section 3.3.1. There are mainly three reasons, the first one is that Double-Marking Methodology defined in section 3.3.2 is already the practical direction, the second one is that IMHO one-bit saving of Single-Marking Methodology doesn't bring meaningful benefit, the third one is that Single-Marking Methodology may bring intrinsic error due to packet misordering, as added in section 3.3.1 of the -01 revision.

Happy Holidays to you and all IPPM folks!

Best Regards,
Xiao Min