Re: [mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-06: (with COMMENT)

Stewart Bryant <> Thu, 01 March 2018 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA2012FA77; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:05:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DAL2_JYZkIGk; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3D8F12FA78; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n7so7843963wrn.5; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:57:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=knLNfb8MeNtTO5Z4oH1VKytpD4Fjgiqjfx+rD5BUw5Q=; b=FNvoqjGicw7O2czbqQSkRMSuQ9w30no/DxFFcAqGOP7BtlDjx3bwZuSznjvRf8y84z +EseE5faOdOFfptUbM6Do1GnzPRsKdFPCMoL0mpdrGvYgF8rc20xPkhjWWIf5s9dMEWA 6V+Prkdepq3PYBIDNuM67bef+7OxqpZYQE6lOAlv8euDLK9AEWPWlfJFEVvtN9YYP23e 5j2fWnc8kJV7HHm+0DHpwkJo615ss0E+9oNZD2wgJzMmxgoHah1QpsqPoadZ/ngGBqgy tdV5hYPZyHzZMdhG5uaaKUhuAO1Cgwj/NtpTzctO235WEdjFsy0VzB9nvT3XUZVyr+xN inWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=knLNfb8MeNtTO5Z4oH1VKytpD4Fjgiqjfx+rD5BUw5Q=; b=BYDZocOuBDBWcHn7vtRMl8rpTQl0FARUnq/vtWn8+BkH7lqgWDUMykudDoymX6Q12f xX7EW9haZoztAOdYhRpH5+KelxXZALI/0+0+FpIvNxaJnqDDLSweVmpewyMN2Kvuir3g PsiOkXSFBPJU5a/QRrPUROUl/mxPQkxZjyCzTrd2GTVXpk6JMrbIadoXpZ711JfIzS9N DreSjyZmQ5RGPvPnqadonoCpbjDWsq9/YhP26iFP0hTTMdpY0StkNWBxLncbbNoovAIR Awr424pa2ndMNWOSf2GCgbhEl4Ok8dhsFQGOfecO7bXtp1GI3LEn0AE4zEdJaAlyHELu j+/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBFe2GFOs5VOKrHSw+JV1FJfk31vampO5Z6tzOhxjRc/wR1cqW6 HYd8TXAeprP71jbes89tApsBUR0D
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtpjRV9CBVImUCj6n8/JilgW8WLsPvIsDvMhtJdDnpWnPJ7P1hEJ7AG1IkKovspoKqkOw3wtg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t12mr3079819wrb.156.1519934225073; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j42sm6670014wre.55.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:57:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Warren Kumari <>, The IESG <>
Cc:,, Loa Andersson <>,
References: <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:57:03 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:05:49 -0000

Hi Warren

Thank you for this review.

I have done all the nits and rewritten the run-ons for clarity along the 
lines you suggest.

Best regards

- Stewart

On 08/01/2018 23:44, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-06: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for writing this, I think it is a useful document -- however, it does
> have a number of nits which would be nice to address (if you make any other
> edits).
> Nits:
> Section 1.  Introduction
> O: "flow identification.The key"
> P: "flow identification. The key"
> R: missing space
> O: performance monitoring of MPLS flows when MPL is used for the encapsulation
> of user data packets. P: performance monitoring of MPLS flows when MPLS is used
> for the encapsulation of user data packets. R: Typo for MPLS?
> O: Indeed it is important that any flow identification technique be invisible
> to them and that no remnant of the identification of measurement process leaked
> into their network. P: Indeed it is important that any flow identification
> technique be invisible to them and that no remnant of the identification of
> measurement process leaks into their network. R: Tense / readability.
> Section 3.  Loss Measurement Considerations
> O: Modern networks, if not oversubscribed, potentially drop relatively
> P: Modern networks, if not oversubscribed, generally drop relatively
> C: "potentially" makes it sound like this might happen. If a network isn't
> oversubscribed it usually won't drop packets.
> Section 4.  Delay Measurement Considerations
> O: Most of the existing delay measurement methods are active measurement that
> depend on the extra injected test packet to evaluate C: I think that this
> should be "active measurements" or "active methods". I'm also confused by the
> singular of "packet".
> O: Also, for injected test packets, these may not be co-routed with the data
> traffic due to ECMP, or various link aggregation technologies all of which
> distribute flows across a number of paths at the network, or data-link and
> hence at the physical layer. C: This sentence is a run on / really confusing. I
> know what you are trying to say, but this doesn't communicate it well. Perhaps
> "Due to ECMP (or link aggregation techniques) injected test packets may
> traverse other links than the data traffic."? Still not great, but I think
> easier to parse.
> Section 5.  Units of identification
> O: In particular note that there may be a need to impose identify at several
> different layers of the MPLS label stack. P: "identity" (or perhaps
> "identification"?)
> O: Such fine grained resolution may be possible by deep packet inspection, but
> this may not always be possible, or it may be desired to minimize processing
> costs by doing this only in entry to the network, and adding a suitable
> identifier to the packet for reference by other network elements. C: This feels
> like a run on. Also I *think* it is "fine-grained" and "on entry to the
> network" (nits)
> O: This allows for the case of instrumenting multiple LSPs operate between the
> same pair of nodes. P: This allows for the case of instrumenting multiple LSPs
> operating between the same pair of nodes. C: Readability.