[ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 09 March 2020 11:17 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 7F0443A0D13; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 04:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.120.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <158375265948.13761.4352578642816303499@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 04:17:39 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/gznI41Zz6tS5wg61l5edkccX0_c>
Subject: [ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Mar 2020 11:17:40 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06: No Objection 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Beside some of my COMMENT about the wording, the flow and the explanations make the document easy to read. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs. An answer will be appreciated. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == The wording "Multipoint to multipoint" raised confusion in my mind to be honest. It took reading further in the document to understand what it was about. What about: "multi-party multiple flows" or "aggregated alternate marking" or "clustered alternate marking" ? -- Section 1 -- In the 5th paragraph, suggest to replace "Multipoint alternate marking" by "this document" (if my assumption is correct). " Intelligent Network " looks more like a marketing name than an IETF defined one. -- Section 3 -- What's in a name... but using "flow" to convey the semantics of multiple flows is weird. Why not using "aggregated flows" ? "headers fields" is it limited to layer-3 only? Probably worth specifying so early in the text by "layer-3 and layer-4 headers fields" Using "TCP 5-tuple" looks simple but what about fragmented packets ? I really have problems with sentences such as "ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-multipoint unicast flow", esp "point-to-multipoint unicast flow" that looks like an oxymoron to me. Perhaps, it is only me having this parsing problem ? -- Section 4 -- Again about IPv4 fragmentation, if fragmentation happens on the path, then there could be more IP packets received than sent. Or are non-initial fragments ignored? If so, I suggest to clarify the text. == NITS == RFC 7322 suggests "The full expansion of the text should be followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses" ;-) Not always applied through this document: e.g., CIR, OTT -- Section 1 -- s/ECMP (Equal-Cost Multi-Path) paths/ECMP (Equal-Cost MultiPath)/ to avoid repeating "path".
- [ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-i… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Giuseppe Fioccola