[pm-dir] R: Request for RFC 6390 review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/

[Fioccola Giuseppe <[e-mail]>]

Thank you! Just submitted the new version.
Best Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Inviato: martedì 3 ottobre 2017 15:05
A: Vinayak Hegde; Fioccola Giuseppe
Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Spencer Dawkins at IETF; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) ([e-mail])
Oggetto: RE: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/

Thanks for completing your pm-dir review, Vin!

And, thanks for receiving our comments
(slightly tardy due to comm failure)
so gracefully, Guiseppe.

regards,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pm-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vinayak 
> Hegde
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 5:22 AM
> To: Fioccola Giuseppe
> Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]; pm- 
> [e-mail]; Spencer Dawkins at IETF; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> ([e-mail])
> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
> 
> Thanks Fioccola. Looking forward to the next revision :) Happy to help.
> 
> Regards
> Vinayak
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Fioccola Giuseppe 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Vinayak,
> > Thanks for your review of the document. I can address your comments 
> > in
> the next version of the draft.
> > Please see my answers inline tagged as [GF].
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Giuseppe
> >
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Vinayak Hegde [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Inviato: domenica 1 ottobre 2017 22:54
> > A: [e-mail]; Spencer Dawkins at IETF;
> Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
> > Oggetto: Fwd: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e=
> >
> > Al mentioned in a private message that this message below did not 
> > make
> it across. So sending it again with the authors in cc for review.
> >
> > -- Vinayak
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Vinayak Hegde <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e=
> > To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>, Benoit
> Claise <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > I have done the review of the draft below as per RFC 6390
> >
> > The RFC mostly conforms to the RFC 6390 recommended format 
> > (separately
> noted in a section "8.  Compliance with RFC6390 guidelines"). There 
> are some small changes that might make the document more clear and readable.
> >
> > 1. Define steady state explicitly - there is an attempt made though
> noting that when the alternate color is being marked in the flow but 
> calling it out would make it clearer.
> >
> > [GF]: Ok I will do. I can add something like that: "steady state is 
> > an
> intrinsic characteristic of the marking method counters because the 
> alternation of color makes the counters associated to each color still 
> one at a time for the duration of a marking period."
> >
> > 2. It might be useful to also explicitly state what the timeout 
> > should
> be for marking the packet as marked. Currently it seems that it is 
> left as an exercise to the implementer of the draft. One way could be 
> to not consider the packets when the same colour is marked again on the flow.
> The old packets of the same colour "expire" or are lost. For example 
> the draft recomends 5 min fr switching the colour. A similar 
> recommendation might be made for marking packets as lost after a 
> certain timeout (either as a percentage of the measurement period or a flat time).
> >
> > [GF]: Yes, I will clarify this point. Timing Aspects are detailed in
> Section 3.2, so I can add a reference to Section 3.2 also here and 
> highlight that there is a relationship between the choice of the 
> marking period and the guardband interval to avoid out of order 
> issues, as you correctly mentioned. 5 minutes marking period is an 
> implementation choice of our experiment because it is coherent with 
> the reporting window of our NMS and simplify our homemade 
> implementation. Other optimized implementation can use a marking period of a few seconds.
> >
> > 3. There are two sections - Normative and Informative. The draft
> addresses the normative and informative parts except the verification 
> section of the informative part. If it is not applicable (may not be 
> possible to reproduce results for verification), then it should be 
> explicitly noted in the draft.
> >
> > [GF]: You are right about this omission and a guidance on 
> > verification
> testing can be provided. I can mention that both in our Lab and in the 
> operational network the methodology has been tested and experimented 
> for packet loss and delay measurements by using traffic generators 
> together with precision test instruments and network emulators.
> >
> > Regards
> > Vinayak
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:02 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Hi Vin,
> >>
> >> reminder for this review,
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:59 PM
> >> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> >> Cc: Vinayak Hegde; Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi, Al,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:14 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) 
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Vin! you have about two weeks till the
> >>
> >> deadline in Spencer’s mail below.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks to the both of you!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Spencer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> @Spencer: Reviewer Assigned.
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Vinayak Hegde [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:21 PM
> >> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> >> Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF; Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am okay with doing it over the weekend.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Vinayak
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13 Sep 2017 23:19, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you for your request, Spencer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are there any volunteers to review this draft?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >> pm-dir admin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: pm-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Spencer 
> >> Dawkins at IETF
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:31 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: Benoit Claise
> >> Subject: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear PM-Dir,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As the responsible AD for this draft, I'd like to request an RFC 
> >> 6390 review for https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dalt-
> 2Dmark_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=CzQWBczTni8nz9-eUPxy8LXYqya7rAngec-U0ieduDQ&e= .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The draft is in Last Call Requested state, with Last Call ending 
> >> around 9-27-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you need anything else, and thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Spencer
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pm-dir mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pm-2Ddir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=280bz7tua9j8MODtCOgrPkwiNMgCxBzR5rZkPdXPQmk&e=
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente
> alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione 
> derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente 
> vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete 
> cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di 
> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain
> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only.
> Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and 
> any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
> >
> > Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pm-dir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pm-2Ddir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZN
> eP cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=280bz7tua9j8MODtCOgrPkwiNMgCxBzR5rZkPdXPQmk&e=

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. 

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. 

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.