[ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-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-rfc8889bis/



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

Please clarify the expected deployment model of this approach.
(a) Section 9.
   The Multipoint Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED only for
   controlled domains, as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

(b) Section 10
   This document specifies a method of performing measurements that does
   not directly affect Internet security or applications that run on the
   Internet.

The text in (a) suggests that deployment can occur on the Internet (although it
isn’t recommended).  However, (b) suggests that OAM meta-data would not be used
on the Internet.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 7.2.2.  Is [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking] the expected mechanism to
combine hashing with Alternative Marking?  If so, it should be a normative
reference.

** Section 9.  Is there a citation that can be provided for the experiments
that informed this design?