[ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hello IPPM,

(with AD hat on)

The IESG is currently considering
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
which is the implementation of RFC 8321
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8321.html> and 8889
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8889.html> 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