Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Giuseppe!

Tal has agreed to shepherd the document. Thanks very much to Tal!

Best,
Tommy

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 5:35 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Tommy, All,
> Thank you!
> I have just posted an updated version (-04) of the draft and included Al's comments.
> Regarding the Document Shepherd I would like to suggest Al Morton or Tal Mizrahi, since they gave useful inputs and comments during the development of the document.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Giuseppe
>   <>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 8:34 PM
> To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>; Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
>  
> Hello all,
>  
> Thanks for your inputs during the last call! We will progress the document to the IESG once we get a Document Shepherd write-up.
>  
> Authors, please post an update of the draft to include Al's comments when you can.
>  
> We also do need a Document Shepherd to create the write-up for this draft. If anyone in the group who is not an author on this document would like to be the document shepherd, please send an email to the chairs!
>  
> Best,
> Tommy
> 
> 
> On Dec 22, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Dear Al,
> Thank you for the support and for the inputs.
> Your suggestions are ok and I will address them in the new revision of the draft.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> 
> 
> Giuseppe Fioccola
> Mobile: [phone] <tel:%3ca%20href=>">15222812418 <tel:[phone]>  
> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:%3ca%20href=>">[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>  
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> To: Tommy Pauly<tpauly=[e-mail] <mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc..ietf.org>>;IETF IPPM WG<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
> Time: 2019-12-22 18:41:08
>  
> Hi IPPM,
>  
> I have reviewed the latest draft of multipoint-alt-mark,
> as well as several earlier versions.
>  
> I believe the draft is ready for publication, with a few minor
> comments below.
>  
> Al
>  
>  
>           multipoint-to-point
>               +------+
>           ---<>  R1  <>
>               +------+ \
>                         \ +------+
>                         <>  R4  <>
>                         / +------+ \
>               +------+ /            \ +------+
>           ---<>  R2  <>              <>  R4  <>---
>               +------+              / +------+
>                           +------+ /
>                          <>  R5  <>
>                         / +------+
>               +------+ /
>           ---<>  R3  <>
>               +------+
>  
> I’m fairly sure the Router on the far right is R6 (Figure 1).
>  
> Also the last sentence of Section 3 reads:
>    While ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-
>    multipoint unicast flow.
> There is an issue with two phrases beginning “While” and “since”, maybe this
> was meant, (plus the phrase in italics?):
>    An ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-
>    multipoint unicast flow, _or/and a point-to-point multipath flow_?
>  
> Section 4.1
>  
> [I-D.amf-ippm-route <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03#ref-I-D.amf-ippm-route>]  Reference out of date, please use WG version.
>  
> Section 5
>  
>    And in case of no packet loss occurring in the marking period, if all
>    the input and output points of the network domain to be monitored are
>    measurement points, the sum of the number of packets on all the
>    ingress interfaces and on all the egress interfaces is the same.
> Suggest
>    And in case of no packet loss occurring in the marking period, if all
>    the input and output points of the network domain to be monitored are
>    measurement points, the sum of the number of packets on all the
>    ingress interfaces _equals the number on egress interfaces for the _monitored_flow.
> ===========
>    It is possible to define the Network Packet Loss (for 1 flow, for 1
>    period): <<In a packet network, the number of lost packets is the
>    number of packets counted by the input nodes minus the number of
>    packets counted by the output nodes>>.
> Suggest
>    It is possible to define the Network Packet Loss (for 1 _monitored_flow, for 1
>    period): <<In a packet network, the number of lost packets is the
>    number of packets counted by the input nodes minus the number of
>    packets counted by the output nodes>>.
>  
> Section 13
>  
> You can probably just say, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.”
>  
>  
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf..org] On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 3:18 PM
> To: IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [ippm] Working Group Last Call: draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
>  
> Hello IPPM,
>  
> Continuing on in our list of Last Calls, we are now beginning the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark:
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmultipoint-2Dalt-2Dmark-2D03&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=CrcUHiENItugXyVC4F6KnN1f0LEcV3F68vitzlOk-04&s=87YJDmtGd8q5H4GpNd7l5SMz6f5lKU34xddFIRdI7jE&e=>
>  
> The Last Call will end on Monday, December 23... Please reply to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> with your reviews, and indicate whether or not you think this document is ready for publication.
>  
> Best,
> Tommy (as co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>