[ippm] Notes on the draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,
thank you for taking up on this work. I believe that it is an important
work, essential to the deployment of the Alternate Marking method (AMM), as
an example of the on-path telemetry. I've read the draft and found that it
is well-written and thoughtfully organized. I have several notes and would
greatly appreciate your kind consideration:

   - It seems like throughout the document, the AMM is considered for only
   packet loss and packet delay measurements. Although that is what have been
   demonstrated in early deployments, I think that AMM can be used for more. I
   imagine that an AMM profile can be defined that includes the collection of
   additional operational state and telemetry information on, for example,
   packets that distinguished with a batch of marked packets. That additional
   information can characterize, for example, queue utilization or trace
   packet through a transit node. We can add more examples in the future
   versions of the draft.
   - AFAICS, there were comments from the SPRING WG questioning the benefit
   of using SRH for the AMM in an SRv6 case instead of using the solution
   defined in RFC 9343. Let's see how that discussion unravels.
   - What are your view for the AMM in an SR-MPLS network? Do yo
   consider that the Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) be also applicable in SR-MPLS
   or that AMM could use the MPLS Network Action (MNA) approach?
   - Although there are proposal to apply AMM in SFC and Geneve (NVO3), the
   work might need a new place to proceed.

Again, thank you for taking on this work!

Regards,
Greg