RE: Adoption Call for "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method"

Hi Eric,
Thanks for your comments.
My answers inline tagged as [GF]

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method"

[Removing my internet area director hat for this post]

While this document is linked to other RFC and WG active documents, I would have appreciated a little more justification for this document. Especially, around the statement in section 2 " The only correct and robust choice that can actually be standardized". At least there is a informative reference to IPPM active documents :-) The security section is also pretty weak.

[GF]: In the next revision, we could emphasize the motivation for that sentence, in particular both the discussion about the earlier document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark/) and the mailing list threads regarding the different alternatives we have investigated (e.g. SRH TLV).

With the above lack of justification, I cannot "throw my voice" for WG adoption yet even if I like the idea and that I am sure that the document will be adopted later once the above issue is really fixed. (A simple email from the IPPM chairs will be enough -- if not yet done).

[GF]: Consider that we already had a discussion with IPPM Chairs, 6MAN Chairs and TSV AD Magnus Westerlund about the Intended Status of the document. The outcome was shared on the mailing list.

I cannot refrain to re-state my previous comment: the hop-by-hop is not really required here, what is actually needed is the ability to mark a packet and up to the routers in the path to do deep packet inspection to find this value. The only benefit of HbH is that it is required to be the first extension header (= less deep in the packet). Or another way to express my point: the extension header is not used in this case to change the forwarding/receiving function just as a placeholder for a 'FlowMonID' marker. Also, the lifetime of HbH in the Internet is pretty limited :-(

[GF]: We have agreed with the WG to describe all the possibilities for now (HbH, DOH, DOH + RH). Note that in the draft, it is reported the issue of HbH support and it is also mentioned this "non-conventional" use of DOH for hop by hop usage (as you suggest) but this is not recommended and many people are against this proposal, indeed it was also suggested to omit this consideration in the next revision. 

And with my AD hat back on: please use the right template for BCP 14 __

[GF]: Sure, we can revise the template for the next revision.

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 00:10
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Adoption Call for "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method" 

    This message starts a two week 6MAN call on adopting:

      Title:	   IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method
      Authors:         G. Fioccola, T. Zhou, M. Cociglio, F. Qin
      File Name	   draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-09
      Document date:   2020-05-04

      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-09

    as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.

    There has been a lot of discussion on this draft, the chairs believe that the major issues raised on the list are resolved in this version of draft and it is ready for the working group to consider adopting as working group draft.

    Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us an indication of the energy level in the working group
    to work on this.

    Regards,
    Bob and Ole

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------