Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> *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) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> *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) <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>
> *Date:* 2021-08-13 02:26
>
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
>
> *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 [e-mail]，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
> [e-mail] ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will
> immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.
>
>