[ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with COMMENT)
John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 11 July 2022 20:49 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 078D9C15A722; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder 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: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <165757255502.5050.14267454388328252576@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:49:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/QMxO1pTPb6WJHlkenQmafAxU3fg>
Subject: [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with 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: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:49:15 -0000
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: No Objection 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-rfc8321bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this quite readable document. I support Roman's DISCUSS. I also have some questions and comments: 1. In §2, Each change of color represents a sort of auto-synchronization signal that guarantees the consistency of measurements taken by different devices along the path. I realize this is fairly picky, but isn't "guarantee" over-promising? In situations like this there's usually some low-probability chance that something will go awry, and that does seem to be possible in this case. Presumably some slightly weaker language like "maximizes the probability of" or similar would be more accurate? 2. In §3.2.1, Since the timestamps refer to specific packets (the first packet of each block), we are sure that timestamps compared to compute delay refer to the same packets. But two paragraphs down you explain how in real life, we are actually not sure, because of the potential for packet loss and misordering. It might, then, be worthwhile to correct the sentence? E.g., "... in the ideal case where no packet loss or misordering exists, we would be sure that timestamps compared to compute the delay refer to the same packets." 3. In §4.3, I must be missing something: In any case, the NMS has to collect all the relevant values from all the routers within one cycle of the timer. "Within one cycle of the timer" seems to assume that the routers don't maintain a table of past values that can be collected at some less demanding cadence, as long as entries aren't allowed to age out. Is there some reason that's not so? (I'm assuming that the timer you're referring to is the fixed color switching timer. If that's not what it is, clarification is needed here.) 4. Thank you very much for reporting results of the earlier experiment, in §7. However, I don't understand why a section titled "Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment" uses RFC 2119 keywords. I guess they'd make more sense if the part that includes 2119 keywords were called something like "Recommendations for Deployment"... or you could just retitle the section as "Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment, with Recommendations for Deployment" as a minimal patch. 5. In §7.1, For security reasons, the Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED only for controlled domains. Do you mean, "the Alternate Marking Method is NOT RECOMMENDED other than in controlled domains"? Because surely you aren't saying all controlled domains SHOULD deploy alt-mark, which is what a strict reading of this sentence, considering the formal definition of RECOMMENDED, means. Also, what exactly is the controlled domain supposed to control? Is it only the scope of marked packets? Or is it also the scope of the data derived from the marked packets? 6. In §10 I find myself bemused by, This document specifies a method to perform measurements in the context of a Service Provider's network and has not been developed to conduct Internet measurements, so it does not directly affect Internet security nor applications that run on the Internet. The Internet is nothing other than the concatenation of many networks, many of which are Service Provider networks, so I don't see how your premise leads to your conclusion? Nits: 7. In §4.2, where you write "(included)" although the meaning is clear, I think "(inclusive)" is more standard usage.
- [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-… John Scudder via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-i… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-i… John Scudder
- Re: [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-i… Giuseppe Fioccola