[ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 12 July 2022 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9621C14F719; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.6.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <165765710968.5209.16575382467376968647@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:18:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Iz0nuQBIU8OFotK40BO3sotAnSo>
Subject: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:18:29 -0000

Lars Eggert 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:


# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Elwyn Davies for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review

## Discuss

### Section 3.1, paragraph 5
     The rest of the document assumes that the blocks are created
     according to a fixed timer.  The switching after a fixed number of
     packets is an additional possibility but its detailed specification
     is out of scope.
This should more strongly say that the use fixed timers are REQUIRED when
implementing the spec. This document should then also be stripped of all text
discussing the "fixed number of packets" approach, to improve clarity. (You
could move it to a non-normative appendix, if there is a desire to keep the text

### Section 3.1, paragraph 16
     Two different strategies that can be used when implementing the
If both of these strategies are part of the standard, concrete guidance needs to
be given when to use one or the other. The text below about "a limited number of
traffic flows") is too unspecific.

### Section 3.2, paragraph 1
     The same principle used to measure packet loss can be applied also to
     one-way delay measurement.  There are three alternatives, as
     described hereinafter.
As above, there is a lot of discussion text around these alternatives, but no
concrete guidance when one SHOULD be used but not the other two. If that
guidance cannot be given, I wonder if we have enough deployment experience to
lift this to the Standards Track.

### Section 5, paragraph 1
     This document introduces two color-switching methods: one is based on
     a fixed number of packets, and the other is based on a fixed timer.
     But the method based on a fixed timer is preferable because it is
     more deterministic, and it is considered in the document.
Section 3.1 says that the fixed-number-based approach is out of scope for this
specification. The text above is inconsistent with that. Again, please remove
the text that talks about the option that is not actually part of the intended
standard (or move it to an appendix.)


## Comments

### Section 1, paragraph 5
     [RFC7276] provides a good overview of existing Operations,
     Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms defined in the IETF,
     ITU-T, and IEEE.  In the IETF, a lot of work has been done on fault
     detection and connectivity verification, while little has been thus
     far dedicated to performance monitoring.  The IETF has defined
     standard metrics to measure network performance; however, its methods
     mainly focus on Active measurement techniques.For example, [RFC6374]
     defines mechanisms for measuring packet loss, one-way and two-way
     delay, and delay variation in MPLS networks, but its applicability to
     Passive measurements has some limitations, especially for connection-
     less networks.
This statement on the current state of work in the IETF might not age well in an
RFC - maybe remove?

### Section 1.2, paragraph 0
  1.2.  Requirements Language
Like draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis, this document is very light on RFC2119
language, which leaves it quite unclear what the actually specified technique is
intended to be. There are a lot of options for various pieces, but not enough
guidance on when an option MUST/SHOULD/MAY be chosen and why.

### Section 3.1, paragraph 17
     Using a fixed timer for color switching offers better control over
     the method: the (time) length of the blocks can be chosen large
     enough to simplify the collection and the comparison of measures
     taken by different network devices.  It's preferable to read the
     value of the counters not immediately after the color switch: some
     packets could arrive out of order and increment the counter
     associated with the previous block (color), so it is worth waiting
     for some time.  A safe choice is to wait L/2 time units (where L is
     the duration for each block) after the color switch, to read the
     counter of the previous color.  The drawback is that the longer the
     duration of the block, the less frequently the measurement can be
Example of a paragraph that can be removed or moved, since the "fixed timer"
option isn't being standardized.

### Section 4.3, paragraph 9
     The Alternate-Marking Method described in this document literally
     splits the packets of the measured flow into different measurement
     blocks.  An implementation MAY use a Block Number (BN) for data
     correlation.  The BN MAY be assigned to each measurement block and
     associated with each packet count and timestamp reported to or pulled
     by other nodes or NMSs.
Shouldn't the second MAY be a MUST? It MAY be done, and if it's done it MUST be
done in this specific way?

### Section 5, paragraph 8
     It is assumed that all network devices are synchronized to a common
     reference time with an accuracy of +/- A/2.  Thus, the difference
     between the clock values of any two network devices is bounded by A.
This should be made an RFC2119 deployment requirement, because if this cannot be
guaranteed, wouldn't the mechanism break down?

### Section 5, paragraph 17
     If the time duration L of each block is not so small, the
     synchronization requirement could be satisfied even with a relatively
     inaccurate synchronization method.  This is true for packet loss and
     two-way delay measurement, but not for one-way delay measurement,
     where clock synchronization must be accurate.  Therefore, a system
     that uses only packet loss and two-way delay measurement may not
     require a very precise synchronization.  This is because the value of
     the clocks of network devices does not affect the computation of the
     two-way delay measurement.
This paragraph does not give actionable guidance on what clock sync scheme to
use for a given deployment.

### Section 6, paragraph 5
        Measurement points MAY simply ignore unmarked fragments and count
        marked fragments as full packets.  However, if resources allow,
        measurement points MAY make note of both marked and unmarked
        initial fragments and only increment the corresponding counter if
        (a) other fragments are also marked, or (b) it observes all other
        fragments and they are unmarked.
Shouldn't this more strongly RECOMMEND noting marked fragments, and give
resource consumption as a reason to not follow the recommendation?

### Section 7, paragraph 2
     Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in
     different deployments:
The combination of SHOULDs and MAYs in the two following paragraphs leaves
things underspecified.

### Section 7.1, paragraph 3
     For security reasons, the Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED
     only for controlled domains.
Shouldn't this be a MUST-level requirement? I thought the security
considerations were only valid inside a limited domain.

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more

 * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 1
packets is an additional possibility but its detailed specification is out o
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 18
 where load-balancing is seldom used and static joins are frequently used to
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 22
rent to intermediate nodes and independent from the path followed by traffic
The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independent of"?

#### Section 13.2, paragraph 4
ut not detailed. o Explanation of the the intrinsic error in section 3.3.1 on
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool