IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] RFC 8321 and 8889

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 August 2021 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.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 5782F3A11DB for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lk0gGbWM4QNc for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 693543A11D9 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id i9so12503387lfg.10 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=01R2FuWWgqhDv/DJoX85TpkLrqRW48aPkyF0IBFGfyc=; b=uF74V3lQ0EwkKvlIMVYuvPRSsAbKJCINV6mrBag2UFBeiubsTUsAfkbXVNhgoD15iw M5uoLobXb7RsoZjnPWDPtOMfh90OJUKCcLEZ4sLj83aO2YDO6/QZ2Re8MT/54sBT0vJ9 prqx3SeQ1pcf3dMxjPqKr8cUhV7UXFavO0Y2rH/VAd2dQGqjRf2PYHmfiTwNjcBMoJVu EKBxK9YRhRkXP6HBvCowjdG7eiBoD59ECMAXp/DUuFQD0Y9cH/2f/FutuHAVdKAGaUjV R19JJASlSKHkzaxlqA1RqxASAhln6fGr0E4u54JtYuBrH0Ppzd+6FqocZd+wlPoiFT63 n27g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=01R2FuWWgqhDv/DJoX85TpkLrqRW48aPkyF0IBFGfyc=; b=Hcg+p0zI6XGMj0A3V1h+bX4aRo54Dr1kwtzkjt+1bYBhUZC1ubCKist/yK9kNExHuB 0M2jeQSG4/OrXymH/L+eJZHETRtLnrxBwDqqO1qLzmeCTwD/pjZyRy8UVoXPm50orQzd NF7Ww4O/0P1YghjwknBE7kTI4bDafUF4G1VvOt7faiDvF07jf58msfjvXjsHTu8UY7jy 48nIuh+BKCBxhkWARl61ALajetyG848kCF8XYXbRt5ULGHryPOqyKEwg+S54K9+yLf4y bcyQ5Dc7RUdHhWWuZPeFHyu2S7FoaOhj6GgVqmh9OtCuKUjAYpv+5Z1be6iNk8DdQshz u4Iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qoxtyabVUIMGrF8B108DYq8HPCHAuOajg5WOWGF6pkTt7Ad43 t69qN/7ElpubLflUW/DiZG7U0BU52NAQ+P/TMA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1M6fRqS7By1/RVYQpMkct9lm5Gw8MXRt/+6/20Bpgzkn/wb+yRurj3CIMH36lnrZUIyqxzYlTuJYTy6lqvcQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1385:: with SMTP id p5mr10571755lfa.447.1629375800820; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQHOV2uWJGeqhSyWAbgr36n71S8Ss1bc-1qFiFex9Wu3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:23:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6fyQFzw_yMws=9fy_OKaU-+yJ=FoHuQo_uisdyJ+p+bCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d0499e05c9e89dfc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ySGk2xwJNeupvA_VHEp0SB8dF3c>
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, 19 Aug 2021 12:23:30 -0000

Hi WG,
The alternate marking method has also been by
draft-gandhi-ippm-simple-direct-loss
as well as draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam. I support elevating to PS.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 2:26 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email