Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jai.kumar@broadcom.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 D4A083A467E for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com
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 B5GeAdY7dtj9 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com (mail-ed1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83ADF3A467D for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id i6so11309932edu.1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:mime-version; bh=w5/Enh2+zyzUvjbxwVoCHrNlgTHq2r7hm/bVJf2EHKo=; b=B/VDSxPe4uW2G5fPYx01M/NE+3SqD7CBZqNmaPULNAzfCOKmPnboNIDsyodRxWF4I8 asLNdezBH0xtdh8ieWf9nUfFFNrQ3wci+nwszicw6A4zTL6M3/ZUi8lSLu6Xl6nsp6E/ fQcFI6hA6pqS0Oru6/HR1SIXgZ8vsT4xZ3oWg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:mime-version; bh=w5/Enh2+zyzUvjbxwVoCHrNlgTHq2r7hm/bVJf2EHKo=; b=t/zNx95WwwCsQ/k9jBhQV+CRY0iwZm/InOkBKefLHX0IMjRStsrush3jXX+lqUZFW1 /oE4jbLVtlP6G64pnn13WuuT0vzkO/t1P1UqBB7/n9oHHAShAlA4y0sDgEA2JDBv9IaI 8zkgnTiJuD6OlF35iZVLY+SqwDLnygoIjyOpdlLEZXVDaNyTEcBrQcGG/607S22yOoy0 sJpOpU8vAgNlalw6MrnfeuDpVwUG0HaluWrKWLwAoqGGj6RagO2Sa5556y0IZzIgeXrU /qE9vQWdPmf/DY4Bb0NiX9X8tsO6iKl4dMT/smYz3hvncTqRD6DUSrKbzimN6zyeY9uM E8Wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZzXyE5949JpB2ZjbYtxH4n1Ujw9mCgpxHvYq+iQonTr782W0n 0P3yqq3va5Y6mC1SgZRmJLue4en9hTUW0ZKzHvPEHBDXoOwpsHj1TZz4pAXj6ufGWcHkSn0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7JwNEbPxLRr972Ql4UU6HWYBqGttr+n9SLbaTBPAZweSPihrACECfCuzDZ8k1BMdULXcxhQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c606:: with SMTP id h6mr7320028edq.363.1628795062898; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM6PR15MB3322.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:301:214f::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g23sm1136591ejm.26.2021.08.12.12.04.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
Thread-Index: AXdxMXlWeVzV7Oltx98bMXRvrakF0MA89sEw
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:04:19 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR15MB332262CF3C11CE680C81810FF6F99@DM6PR15MB3322.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="00000000000026c8e305c96167e8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/oqIKivjXz20wqSQqpqzZB8J85Hw>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889
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: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:04:31 -0000

Quick feedback on 8321.
8321 is deployed in 5G and SP deployment and has support from Broadcom as silicon vendor.

Let me know if any supporting document (non-confidential) with deployment details are needed to elevate the draft status to PS.

Note: I am not on the author list of the draft.

-Jai


From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

Hello IPPM,

(with AD hat on)

The IESG is currently considering
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
which is the implementation of RFC 8321<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8321.html> and 8889<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8889.html> techniques in an IPv6 framework. IIUC, this is very much how things are "supposed to work" -- measurement definitions and methodology are done by IPPM, and the protocol-specific instantiations are in the respective working groups.

However, there are complications in that 8321 and 8889 are Experimental RFCs, and the ipv6-alt-mark draft is a Proposed Standard. This has resulted in text from 8321/8889 going into ipv6-alt-mark so that it can be elevated to PS. I'm told that, if the status quo holds, other drafts will reference ipv6-alt-mark to avoid a downref. This seems suboptimal.

I would prefer that we take one of the two following actions:
1) If the WG has consensus that we are comfortable that there is enough experience with 8321 and/or 8889 to elevate them to PS, I can initiate a document action to change their status.

2) If there is no such consensus, ipv6-alt-mark should be Experimental.

In either case, the draft can probably lose some of the duplicate text.

Logically, there is a third option -- that the bits of the RFCs copied in the draft are mature enough to be a standard, but that the others aren't. Though I'm not an expert, I doubt this is the case. But if people believe it to be true, we'll have to come up with new options.

I would be grateful for the working group's thoughts about these documents and the ideas therein. Is it reasonable for people to read and reflect on this by 26 August (2 weeks from today?)

Thanks,
Martin

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.