Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

Thanks for your inputs during the last call! We will progress the document to the IESG once we get a Document Shepherd write-up.

Authors, please post an update of the draft to include Al's comments when you can.

We also do need a Document Shepherd to create the write-up for this draft. If anyone in the group who is not an author on this document would like to be the document shepherd, please send an email to the chairs!

Best,
Tommy

> On Dec 22, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Al,
> Thank you for the support and for the inputs.
> Your suggestions are ok and I will address them in the new revision of the draft.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> 
> 
> Giuseppe Fioccola
> Mobile: [phone] <tel:<a href=>">15222812418 <tel:[phone]>  
> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:<a href=>">[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> 
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> To: Tommy Pauly<tpauly=[e-mail] <mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc..ietf.org>>;IETF IPPM WG<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
> Time: 2019-12-22 18:41:08
> 
> Hi IPPM,
>  
> I have reviewed the latest draft of multipoint-alt-mark,
> as well as several earlier versions.
>  
> I believe the draft is ready for publication, with a few minor
> comments below.
>  
> Al
>  
>  
>           multipoint-to-point
>               +------+
>           ---<>  R1  <>
>               +------+ \
>                         \ +------+
>                         <>  R4  <>
>                         / +------+ \
>               +------+ /            \ +------+
>           ---<>  R2  <>              <>  R4  <>---
>               +------+              / +------+
>                           +------+ /
>                          <>  R5  <>
>                         / +------+
>               +------+ /
>           ---<>  R3  <>
>               +------+
>  
> I’m fairly sure the Router on the far right is R6 (Figure 1).
>  
> Also the last sentence of Section 3 reads:
>    While ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-
>    multipoint unicast flow.
> There is an issue with two phrases beginning “While” and “since”, maybe this
> was meant, (plus the phrase in italics?):
>    An ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-
>    multipoint unicast flow, _or/and a point-to-point multipath flow_?
>   <>
> Section 4.1
>  
> [I-D.amf-ippm-route <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03#ref-I-D.amf-ippm-route>]  Reference out of date, please use WG version.
>  
> Section 5
>  
>    And in case of no packet loss occurring in the marking period, if all
>    the input and output points of the network domain to be monitored are
>    measurement points, the sum of the number of packets on all the
>    ingress interfaces and on all the egress interfaces is the same.
> Suggest
>    And in case of no packet loss occurring in the marking period, if all
>    the input and output points of the network domain to be monitored are
>    measurement points, the sum of the number of packets on all the
>    ingress interfaces _equals the number on egress interfaces for the _monitored_flow.
> ===========
>    It is possible to define the Network Packet Loss (for 1 flow, for 1
>    period): <<In a packet network, the number of lost packets is the
>    number of packets counted by the input nodes minus the number of
>    packets counted by the output nodes>>.
> Suggest
>    It is possible to define the Network Packet Loss (for 1 _monitored_flow, for 1
>    period): <<In a packet network, the number of lost packets is the
>    number of packets counted by the input nodes minus the number of
>    packets counted by the output nodes>>.
>  
> Section 13
>  
> You can probably just say, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.”
>  
>  
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf..org] On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 3:18 PM
> To: IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
>  
> Hello IPPM,
>  
> Continuing on in our list of Last Calls, we are now beginning the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark:
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmultipoint-2Dalt-2Dmark-2D03&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=CrcUHiENItugXyVC4F6KnN1f0LEcV3F68vitzlOk-04&s=87YJDmtGd8q5H4GpNd7l5SMz6f5lKU34xddFIRdI7jE&e=>
>  
> The Last Call will end on Monday, December 23... Please reply to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> with your reviews, and indicate whether or not you think this document is ready for publication.
>  
> Best,
> Tommy (as co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>