[ippm] New Draft: draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00

Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> Mon, 25 October 2021 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tal.mizrahi.phd@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 E14343A0776 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 CZ5316yGrWz8 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (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 7BB783A0063 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 5so275625wmb.1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YVMikqPfb1L7Jb0Su3B7LHr/5z0UASkKz1hhIResRPw=; b=o49s59fvHCkEhQ6290htZcZTdnXcVU3JJR2leKJ5IvgAB6nVNrev5PC2UCiI9X9pam lqoBEjjLfTSSjYhSiKcdcTW+6sEFFsj1C//KdpmXPFMOShxBB3aCzghg2+2RkURwjHjo muAqyx5R1QmlECPKGLV+oXH4Lm6qeby6pFeBQcnlxFdYVkCGFX/b6gK2yq1TnBjnMblM YYPVu2pVY8xcziqzsxlJpyLULJ5HKc9ACq1Zo/h8vrz6vqoC2gG9zHIbrLoT3kM34J0A fAYYynqnj3jHga1+ZUQ7Chq13cbkgTcyJzAHQjSE7sPANsKXPFYznrEPLPPngiNg9S/5 Ezjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=YVMikqPfb1L7Jb0Su3B7LHr/5z0UASkKz1hhIResRPw=; b=WL4dQCIrmrhYECR+M7B3U7vbxGKkJTINKl9csH2x7TQcJbzoIZ3MhwR4YhSSdrm36R 8pwz9Dxa51t+ngSFiZjxUfN560zrtdAYfKsk1ppmSRitrVvrrJDWXVSXZ4Vi1UTiNPAW DBXVfKYAnxzpbGJZqHSIbfs5gmTk5HrSIwtXHLpwljfrGRPvO4j0fBB68YemRMkhKeVk SjUVjWus049KdYXnVios9nJEo8TsyTaQxkPogXUUIJyBunADjgdEUtfUHfKU6xtimb4R eiy/FSPTgpBI/QaMpdTjy3NV5l9BkKofxrVQOYqoy0PoXx1JOPhH1pFsPvgV/jvyo8BA GaRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ri2dcapH0K+t4q0xTXNvcWf1FpsGMlIi71XO484aG49D4ShRF DXvuAvgwuYXSr+eyaTGWjKbwFToCF+kDFMBi/xIFOBlZJ0UyvBCJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXeAb52QkzzLdYv+oZoBLGk68YZZWB/enw/8r2RBDzGhrOZzicUfCjWxLvHhJ+VrZfZYhcOG3Rs12eyBqvJa8=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c351:: with SMTP id l17mr19161634wmj.120.1635152837537; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163514707010.28291.13665614171375267957@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <163514707010.28291.13665614171375267957@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:07:06 +0300
Message-ID: <CABUE3XkmRV-22XHnt7n_jimWY70F2VPxB+3jW+x2OvdSgjsKOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ZW4MXVODih39YSWR-m0jFn8Bawk>
Subject: [ippm] New Draft: draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00
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, 25 Oct 2021 09:07:25 -0000

Hi,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking

This new draft summarizes the different marking methods that have been
discussed out there in the context of performance measurement. With
RFC8321bis moving to Proposed Standard, we believe it is useful to
summarize the different marking methods; not only the methods from
RFC8321, but also other methods that have been discussed.

This draft is partially based on an older (expired) draft:
draft-mizrahi-ippm-multiplexed-alternate-marking.

Feedback would be welcome.

Thanks,
Tal.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:31 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00.txt
To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Giuseppe Fioccola
<giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>,
Mauro Cociglio <mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it>, Tal Mizrahi
<tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tal Mizrahi and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking
Revision:       00
Title:          Marking Methods for Performance Measurement
Document date:  2021-10-25
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          25
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking


Abstract:
   This memo presents a summary of marking methods for performance
   measurements, and discusses the tradeoffs among them.  These marking
   methods enable to measure various performance metrics such as packet
   loss and delay, and require a low overhead in the header of data
   packets, as low as one or two bits per packet, or in some cases even
   zero bits per packet.  The target audience of this document is
   network protocol designers; this document is intended to help
   protocol designers choose the best marking method(s) based on the
   protocol's constraints and requirements.




The IETF Secretariat