[ippm] Jim Guichard's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-03: (with DISCUSS)

Jim Guichard via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 01 May 2023 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D171BC13AE2A; Mon, 1 May 2023 07:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Guichard via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Jim Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Message-ID: <168295080384.49928.5675199861192112944@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 07:20:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/docJ7weJpredUx1SHZkLWaEL0rs>
Subject: [ippm] Jim Guichard's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-03: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 May 2023 14:20:03 -0000

Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-03: 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:


I am wondering why this is an informational document when it uses reserved bits
from both QUIC and TCP headers (?). If those reserved bits are used by the
mechanisms described in this document but there is no "official" allocation of
the bits then future documents that wish to use these bits will be limited
and/or clash with an Informational RFC. Adding a DISCUSS as although this is
not a technical area of expertise for me, it seems unusual and I would like to
better understand the document track selection.

I also do not see a transport area directorate review and in fact the document
shepherd highlights that the document could benefit from such a review. Given
that the bits introduced in the document are suggested to be carried in the
QUIC and TCP headers using their reserved bits, then a review by the area
responsible for those transport protocols seems mandatory.