Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,
Thank you for the review.
Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
I will work on a new revision to address your comments.

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 8:20 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: Discuss

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-rfc8889bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please clarify the expected deployment model of this approach.
(a) Section 9.
   The Multipoint Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED only for
   controlled domains, as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

(b) Section 10
   This document specifies a method of performing measurements that does
   not directly affect Internet security or applications that run on the
   Internet.

The text in (a) suggests that deployment can occur on the Internet (although it
isn’t recommended).  However, (b) suggests that OAM meta-data would not be used
on the Internet.

[GF] Similarly to RFC8321bis, I will revise the text in (a) and replace it with: "The Multipoint Alternate Marking Method MUST only be applied to controlled domains."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 7.2.2.  Is [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking] the expected mechanism to
combine hashing with Alternative Marking?  If so, it should be a normative
reference.

[GF]: I can omit the reference to [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking] also because it is currently expired. I can probably refer to [IEEE-Network-PNPM] given that it introduces the same mechanism.

** Section 9.  Is there a citation that can be provided for the experiments
that informed this design?

[GF]: The original RFC8889 reported deployment examples (in particular it was experimented for Mobile Backhaul and VPN). Also, [IEEE-Network-PNPM] includes some information about the operational experience.