Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 23 August 2021 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2CA3A0F9D for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOOmy-sk3Ng6 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com (mail-il1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5135A3A0F61 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id r6so18149825ilt.13 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kjk2nytuovOEUJ+0fu4ldYgn1q16+ulgRHT7plDVIiQ=; b=spUv0s3bAJq6S+XSXVOj4rugq37dY4D4POfQLwinV0/8OiXMli7tw0uvNx1cAFavd2 5LgBIALj2f84IQ2VnoMHm3BI/PML2BZyr5ezRv5aFEa0hL3/ofQO5YCCRak7SKcojcUS CWaW3MZVPmhZkMgnb9CkrnpFS7U0XSfQHiwJTxHYIpsClC3CjDzVGLHK5uqV7kqWOSKh 90VrSJMzZsx0Z8NOTorSe6LsGs5WNJ56+e8SleUYpEAjSVosHNFdrzC93M1Q4RTcVp9P STktFVv3r/Vost+2G3wpu027OzQUwwOSS6QHJBxNIGpmq4P7px+mm2hbwD6ouKL25hOO m7Uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kjk2nytuovOEUJ+0fu4ldYgn1q16+ulgRHT7plDVIiQ=; b=eRNhwu3SelrJ4pcI50c9GFGty6lRt5IUp36CAW38NrrAjay0AMxBX2GwCgo8lr5vL9 PpXsJyQDiYX+hxbJMMCpOb7Tmc1RQomOqu0ymkDEsgEdQuJM3FChiG1H2pzy8SUuw6DM iANg+1+TFl9mYMaTEHhWPGPL3tgsHsO7/EwKwz59Aepv6NoH9LMdivzXTdoqG4oiLMKI OVlOr/vEbAJOi7flUDyPgUY2iZRF3y1sBUQfNPxehjQ4z/Gkw9TNAqMoE7tIAHrZWlY8 X16s6gU9ZlVH7xNt34O/kSEbU92y8lyD0Shxf/ZuYlLwo3KUWUaxuSgfjR4cl7Tni1Xk k2Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZzOZJYDeWzOYshAGl5pRgWPiZxD4gb6Qt5fGAyWXUE8AKbcMO novBHXXbHaI/1zxRrO5943b52J7+OhThWPBY4VQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2RmYANqygjJvEnXVwJwI0rPk8PbkmZAy6uBFWl+f+39xU0O3Wm+VotvFYw2I02qFe2QfUkHsg6jLaz0uMers=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:ed1:: with SMTP id i17mr24197825ilk.272.1629747257138; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com> <d392b3339899499590e0d1c9e7a761a0@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra> <CAM4esxS-zLVGO7oYLf+aRhWmYLg4FOzZ1cvTRDnx0kmQ2-_44Q@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR02MB78531F377BA2BED3CACB43DFD3C19@SJ0PR02MB7853.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR02MB78531F377BA2BED3CACB43DFD3C19@SJ0PR02MB7853.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:34:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTd76BDaGDxHzxqM8am+g2bAui7=Q06uGoXkLLq25Ur4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MORTON JR., AL" <acmorton@att.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFuIFBhbmco6IGU6YCa6ZuG5Zui5Lit5Zu96IGU6YCa56CU56m26ZmiLeacrOmDqCk=?= <pangran@chinaunicom.cn>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055e4ce05ca3f1acc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Ms3GhDmLrdqELHBxtpH7RDAX5nE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
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: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 19:34:26 -0000

Hi Al, this is my impression as well. In a perfect world I would ask the WG
to do a bis draft to inventory what is mature and to deprecate the bits
that haven't seen real deployment. If it turns out that it's all deployed,
then we could do a simpler document action.

Is this work that anyone is interested in taking on?

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:41 AM MORTON JR., AL <acmorton@att.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> While I don’t have a serious concern, I’d prefer to elevate the parts of
> 8321 that **were implemented** to PS.  I think I read that some parts
> were not implemented and I look to those who reported on their
> implementations to say what they did.
>
>
>
> This thinning-out of non-implemented capabilities was a feature of
> Standards Track Advancement processes in the past, so it makes sense to
> apply it here as well.  I realize this means a new draft, but the
> processing could be accelerated to match the need.
>
>
>
> If the entire RFC 8321 was implemented, then this point is a non-issue.
>
>
>
> hope this helps,
>
> Al
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Martin Duke
> *Sent:* Friday, August 20, 2021 12:31 PM
> *To:* Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部) <pangran@chinaunicom.cn>
> *Cc:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
>
>
>
> Thanks all,
>
>
>
> I'm hearing strong consensus that 8321 should be a PS and somewhat weaker
> support for 8889, but no dissents.
>
>
>
> If anyone has serious concerns, this would be a good time to say so.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:02 AM Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部) <
> pangran@chinaunicom.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin and WG,
>
>
>
> The alt-mk described in RFC8321/8889 has been deployed in some of our
> networks.
>
> It works well.
>
> So I would like the WG consider elevate them to proposed standard.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pang Ran.
>
>
>
> *From:* Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>
> *Date:* 2021-08-13 02:26
>
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
>
> *Subject:* [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
>
>
> (with AD hat on)
>
>
>
> The IESG is currently considering
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08__;!!BhdT!04s1Z7EtCnJrifRI3dUP1d0hps2MsV_B1gLCAqMQ1jJwmHnx-jiXCBYQM6IB$>
>
> which is the implementation of RFC 8321
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8321.html__;!!BhdT!04s1Z7EtCnJrifRI3dUP1d0hps2MsV_B1gLCAqMQ1jJwmHnx-jiXCEt7L0EO$>
> and 8889
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8889.html__;!!BhdT!04s1Z7EtCnJrifRI3dUP1d0hps2MsV_B1gLCAqMQ1jJwmHnx-jiXCD5jrkAO$>
> techniques in an IPv6 framework. IIUC, this is very much how things are
> "supposed to work" -- measurement definitions and methodology are done by
> IPPM, and the protocol-specific instantiations are in the respective
> working groups.
>
>
>
> However, there are complications in that 8321 and 8889 are Experimental
> RFCs, and the ipv6-alt-mark draft is a Proposed Standard. This has resulted
> in text from 8321/8889 going into ipv6-alt-mark so that it can be elevated
> to PS. I'm told that, if the status quo holds, other drafts will reference
> ipv6-alt-mark to avoid a downref. This seems suboptimal.
>
>
>
> I would prefer that *we take one of the two following actions*:
>
> 1) If the WG has consensus that we are comfortable that there is enough
> experience with 8321 and/or 8889 to elevate them to PS, I can initiate a
> document action to change their status.
>
>
>
> 2) If there is no such consensus, ipv6-alt-mark should be Experimental.
>
>
>
> In either case, the draft can probably lose some of the duplicate text.
>
>
>
> Logically, there is a third option -- that the bits of the RFCs copied in
> the draft are mature enough to be a standard, but that the others aren't.
> Though I'm not an expert, I doubt this is the case. But if people believe
> it to be true, we'll have to come up with new options.
>
>
>
> I would be grateful for the working group's thoughts about these documents
> and the ideas therein. Is it reasonable for people to read and reflect on
> this by 26 August (2 weeks from today?)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
> 如果您错误接收了该邮件,请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn,即可以退
> 订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error
> please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to
> hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will
> immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.
>
>