IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] QUIC concerns relating to draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 12 May 2023 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.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 0A1D1C14CF1C; Fri, 12 May 2023 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5p1lFfQMo6l; Fri, 12 May 2023 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38DBFC13AE24; Fri, 12 May 2023 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50db7ec8188so7907642a12.2; Fri, 12 May 2023 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683918309; x=1686510309; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mApiOzT3RNx+Vaxmz0MVkf2YRRHLYbAxorhX36fi5R4=; b=gEstTfz10fGxhr5uh3y7cLl+7xZa6WZZHyhFkx0yaTVu88+y6j68wI+1ixWfXQbBdS E//FpjfAI5HG9Rhe6lH86r0hznopZ+6jixlqJYYRHjUZrbxti5sksfON222hbP2ChQXQ mBGQQghlHjWu8M9wvzWuRtrR1sByOoL7RiP/sAYMskhQtTOwI5kU+VeQIeztxDqOLKY9 2dpK2Unx26YXElC+VvwWOE5m3GFrmEA7TBO1/NBzNvfelXaurIkErOReKsof8xEfF/FE 4O6nntClKa7ezgdQBG4Uwwx/yXwr6cHas5Eanx8FVALaSYNKEGZSF9VUBKvqXWbFxu7C vxEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683918309; x=1686510309; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mApiOzT3RNx+Vaxmz0MVkf2YRRHLYbAxorhX36fi5R4=; b=ja904njR9fkTwt6jnU+JHd2BZsXoq7DGXaTmCODhasLTV8r10yxfsRs90OVhT9T0G1 GVDu927mvMpGrlYLsy4RXfDr+NJShhfOafQZzAmN1SoCA5ghN4+dVAf9DNaR0FkmMrEm rK1xMWC0bvn6CRhmcXHmREYfIXteLo9dQ5tvVdEbB2tHtoe+yY6sFiLrKslmfSr56Bt0 YBsNQdMm2kZC9zXvXBnbgD7N627ro/r4WJ9ab1W8AzdbJ5peKm/ieJX+/0+dUdFASd4V owR7XXuGZ76UnHsFsUAr5e/usXuikI66xAEfHICyE8TjkLMb40+fZjchGt7bdQl9DxkI Hbqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwysqhx93y8pS7+xo32EZlK6fKqLNAVDcJjtBtg0eFrnexcyIbT JqQWO73HwyXIQXEt3gFIHCUcIKAbWGITKxP80CY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7JdJcRr625k8OhM3xZbsZTYVln1OxWP2e7JvIp8+zH8324/AJqR/3+v1zHuFoDlKeDZxK3Icd/FzmkP23HYl8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3e1d:b0:94e:dd30:54b5 with SMTP id hp29-20020a1709073e1d00b0094edd3054b5mr28049563ejc.6.1683918309247; Fri, 12 May 2023 12:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oZxFEXWD5hZZOJB7q+-f766FsjBGBTNjpuc1jyZyucz3Q@mail.gmail.com> <3103CBFB-5112-4FAC-A2F0-5209F52AB288@apple.com> <CALGR9oboNgFo-BA0Sqstog_JFPm+DL545VUSbksgF1chTnZ7VQ@mail.gmail.com> <791fd608-8112-bea7-9e22-5d0b8b9e8b1d@huitema.net> <5cf7edfcdf604f13b7fda36d206babfb@huawei.com> <18d470b2-ccfc-41a3-bbef-a572091502bb@betaapp.fastmail.com> <1cb7ab2a31394a19b20418ca7cd8ebb0@akamai.com> <4e85047d-2197-e75a-a665-211075925dad@huitema.net> <f7ee3a0d-c0f5-491f-a0f5-4fb41bb56ea8@betaapp.fastmail.com> <3f0ffd1d-191e-3d7a-cea5-fa9d89d3dd84@huitema.net> <CADgHTrYPSZTeYPaFzRJZPq1ZyMrAEdxb9xx+0Bsttu7gJcDwww@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR0701MB6800BCAD13C4EC5DBBF760A6E5759@VI1PR0701MB6800.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CALGR9obh5fNR0cFW2U8yUArCrbvDT90Mwb46E6v3RzBvtwDybw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9obh5fNR0cFW2U8yUArCrbvDT90Mwb46E6v3RzBvtwDybw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 12:04:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+7k==7hdNEug4O58F9cxEox=VuCk4Vtsphs2uO=u8GR1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>, "Bulgarella Fabio (Guest)" <fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it>, "Cociglio Mauro (outlook.com)" <mauro.cociglio@outlook.com>, "giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com" <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>, "massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it" <massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a74ec005fb83c86f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/uOzUPU13XFDOQeplAk7EMZAn-qA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] QUIC concerns relating to draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 12 May 2023 19:05:15 -0000

I agree with Lucas here. If the authors are in the process of writing
separate drafts for how to encode this in COAP, QUIC, and TCP - then adding
informational references to those drafts in an example section sounds like
a good plan, but showing how to use specific bits in this draft (even in an
appendix) without actually registering them will likely lead to confusion.

David

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:25 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nilo,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:11 PM Nilo Massimo <massimo.nilo=
> 40telecomitalia.it@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> first of all thanks for the many comments received.
>>
>> As jointly agreed at the time with the chairs of the IPPM, QUIC and TSWG
>> WGs, this draft is general and its purpose is to describe only the
>> measurement methodologies in a protocol independent way. In order to
>> describe their application to a certain protocol, it was agreed to present
>> a specific draft in the related WG.
>>
>> So to give an example, with regard to the COAP protocol, this was done by
>> submitting a draft in the CORE WG. See
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-coap-pm/
>>
>> Therefore, with regard to the QUIC protocol, we will prepare a draft to
>> be presented in the QUIC WG which will address the issues highlighted in
>> this thread and details related to the possible future implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for this draft
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements
>> , we will write a new version of it where the section 6 will be placed in a
>> draft appendix and renamed to Experimental Examples.
>>
>> In this way (we hope) it will be clear that we are talking about
>> experiments made, and that they must not be interpreted as implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the other co-authors agree, we can proceed to make a new version of
>> the draft.
>>
>
> Given that section 6 just seems to be a trivial presentation of how to
> assign bits in QUIC's 7 bit space, I don't really see what the value of
> talking about any specifics are. What benefit would the authors see in
> keeping an appendix?
>
> Cheers
> Lucas
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email