Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Mon, 03 January 2022 09:18 UTC
Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 838CF3A0D3D for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 01:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vvD5LkcwfBro for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 01:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D55C83A0D3A for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 01:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JS98m4jffz67nWT; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:16:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 10:18:31 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.020; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 10:18:31 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: "xiao.min2@zte.com.cn" <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHX+HBOUIuCQOw/1Eeo9KB6v/mPFqxREKRA
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 09:18:31 +0000
Message-ID: <dc6b9b0e39d8431694aaa4646ded24c4@huawei.com>
References: <202112241045151378136@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202112241045151378136@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.95.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/dJ9dxpYYRehZunh2GVpoiJx-uUE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01
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, 03 Jan 2022 09:18:40 -0000
Hi Xiao, Thanks a lot for your feedback. In section 5 we already mentioned how to use one or two flag bits in different deployments. But we can also include a similar consideration for the Single-Marking Methodology in section 3.3.1. If two flag bits are available, Double-Marking Methodology is definitely a better choice. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 3:45 AM To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>; ippm@ietf.org Subject: Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01 Hi Giuseppe, I noticed in the -01 revision you added that "The switching after a fixed number of packets is an additional possibility but its detailed specification is out of scope." I like this change, it gives the clear practical direction on fixed-timer method, as well as reserving the possibility for someone to develop details based on fixed-number method. I suggest to apply the similar description on Single-Marking Methodology defined in section 3.3.1. There are mainly three reasons, the first one is that Double-Marking Methodology defined in section 3.3.2 is already the practical direction, the second one is that IMHO one-bit saving of Single-Marking Methodology doesn't bring meaningful benefit, the third one is that Single-Marking Methodology may bring intrinsic error due to packet misordering, as added in section 3.3.1 of the -01 revision. Happy Holidays to you and all IPPM folks! Best Regards, Xiao Min
- [ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01 xiao.min2
- Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-… Giuseppe Fioccola