Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I support the DISCUSS positions from Lars, Roman, and Martin.

(1a) Of special concern to me is Martin's point about the relationship between
this document and rfc8321/8889, and the potential ability to reference this
work without proper review by the ippm WG.  Note that neither RFC is explicit
about the criteria to complete the respective experiments; the Shepherd writeup
for rfc8321 [a] states that "the measurement utility of this extension still is
to be demonstrated at a variety of scales in a plurality of network
conditions." Furthermore, I am not aware of discussions about the maturity of
rfc8321 in the ippm WG.

[a] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/shepherdwriteup/

(2) There are several references to I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark, which was
replaced by draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark and ultimately by this document.  IOW,
it looks like this document refers to an old version of itself.  Since the
references are mostly about analysis made in the early drafts, it may be better
to include some of that in an appendix instead.