Re: [ippm] QUIC concerns relating to draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nilo,

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:11 PM Nilo Massimo <massimo.nilo=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> first of all thanks for the many comments received.
>
> As jointly agreed at the time with the chairs of the IPPM, QUIC and TSWG
> WGs, this draft is general and its purpose is to describe only the
> measurement methodologies in a protocol independent way. In order to
> describe their application to a certain protocol, it was agreed to present
> a specific draft in the related WG.
>
> So to give an example, with regard to the COAP protocol, this was done by
> submitting a draft in the CORE WG. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-coap-pm/
>
> Therefore, with regard to the QUIC protocol, we will prepare a draft to be
> presented in the QUIC WG which will address the issues highlighted in this
> thread and details related to the possible future implementation.
>
>
>
> As for this draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements
> , we will write a new version of it where the section 6 will be placed in a
> draft appendix and renamed to Experimental Examples.
>
> In this way (we hope) it will be clear that we are talking about
> experiments made, and that they must not be interpreted as implementation.
>
>
>
> If the other co-authors agree, we can proceed to make a new version of the
> draft.
>

Given that section 6 just seems to be a trivial presentation of how to
assign bits in QUIC's 7 bit space, I don't really see what the value of
talking about any specifics are. What benefit would the authors see in
keeping an appendix?

Cheers
Lucas