[ippm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this specification.

My fellow AD colleagues have already put discusses on the concerns I have.
Overall, I found this document easy to ready but lacking some clarity on the
assumptions and instructions. For, this I am supporting Roman's and Lars's
discuss.

Apart from those I have one additional concern.

## Section 7 : says -
      In the case where the marking method is applied by changing existing
   fields of the packets, it is RECOMMENDED to use an additional flag or
   some out-of-band signaling to indicate if the measurement is
   activated or not in order to inform the measurement points.

  It is not clear who is changing existing fields of which packets? It needs
  more specific description for at least which packets are we talking about (IP
  packets? ) and what additional flag we are referring to here.