Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Tue, 10 March 2020 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 CDDB93A13D8; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 C60nmGvAr_Yl; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 391A53A1422; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0AF4CADB689C5F2CA18A; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:16:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml716-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.12) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:16:00 +0000
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml716-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:16:00 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:16:00 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark@ietf.org>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV9pelj0GMfazmQUGjdm+aLCVBMKhB1rzg
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:16:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9d958bb879304d7399819c4c3d73d29e@huawei.com>
References: <158381589470.5523.1164066942364578999@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158381589470.5523.1164066942364578999@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.8.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/qaaV5Yy0TLVZPVL6ksBsiPIY0y8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:16:18 -0000

Dear Barry,
Thanks for your comment.
I have included your suggested changes and capitalized “Alternate Marking” through the document.

Regarding the first paragraph, I can change "explains" with "applies to". It should be better.

Regarding the second paragraph, I can rephrase it as follows: " The Alternate Marking methodology described in RFC 8321 allows the synchronization of the measurements in different points by dividing the packet flow into batches. So it is possible to get coherent counters..."

These changes are addressed in my local version.

I will upload a new revision as soon as I get the additional ballot positions and comments.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 5:52 AM
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
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this to be a somewhat difficult read, with some awkward wording. 
Because of time constraints I’ll mostly not comment specifically, but leave it to the RPC.  My comments below on Section 1 are examples.

— Abstract —

   This document aims to generalize and expand this
   methodology

“This document generalizes and expands this methodology”

— Section 1 —
The “; so” in the first sentence doesn’t follow from what comes before.  It seems that you’ve just glued together two unrelated sentences, and I would unglue them: “point-to-point path.  The extension proposed”

How does the extension explain anything?  Isn’t it the document that does the explaining, but then the extension that does the enabling?

I can’t parse the first sentence of the second paragraph, and I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.  Can you try re-writing it?

Please check to make sure you are consistent about capitalizing “Alternate Marking” and “Multipoint Alternate Marking” through the document.  It looks like you have it about half and half.