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

Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com> Tue, 03 October 2017 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <vinayakh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD64813450E; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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=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 yu9Y2_RimFI2; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 A12F71344F9; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k1so814208qti.2; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v5caeuYWywu/plVXCPHm0zLUulCjhRJoHeqhfvfVx1M=; b=NzJarDxmaiuJjNmnOd5sXyXLn6Xd8fiM6kQnsAmhoikTRP89+rO8Xz7l1KUXGOgfF1 hv5jeXwznRpAksfgeporb/NnQ5PLQGwIDq+Pc1fr+9rGi0u+Ps6gMBDkPvAXIUuVHtoo kWNvmLhyC8OGsdyFAJhbXoRVi39IeaaFY1Hvn3/yP4uM99MUNH/klAxc531vHudjiO7g TL58FQiLDIM+KxUN6u1xL2QZWw0CPycREnRvrSsfI66da1GLmh6DP5fsZytWSxKTXStP IJA7XYWJnIo+Skgf4U3PB8/e0YJpTSnOqnuhfaSrX14ZWLtToLlAx1+6kxKlwC1ZKNmb 60+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v5caeuYWywu/plVXCPHm0zLUulCjhRJoHeqhfvfVx1M=; b=QMKpZQ24LIeen8vaFqWbOTMRnnPsUlXa8wHCTSRzRIG2qJ6vGD/yiQWoVVLVzbaPbY 84/sOuF/zbvSy1jOv5tCepZK8el7xLshZ3QFAsvRigPYDgCSjMtF+eT4iIqWa6tda7Rf ZmZTltrKWeQPteIWo/gwmDOy6wcUqlgsizmcJulvSEys8vy+j5bLd5aublrx0rz3uj17 ZsXwoNfD4SM0hx8bSdEeRX6rrGYyuX327EDNSJex+Q7N7ofI+gt9fEE/RuxODym9zO/g kabNRFyAXwh+JZdkRiUWIDZ+zmPmlH+9nJ3LZbBx3obZ9loPlIKW2wyM6zaLFIX5fcOi 3DgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWhxKCPrGmW14wKxE0z5Q2JNCK9UfGhqBl+FelrCG0JHpRnyQCm BermTWYC85rdwXoo/o3jNzkPx0DQtJe1D7WbOmE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB9yZKGBB3htLBoAoRFuHq2Ezo9imWb+h11pFPy2nr2lh1+giPhE9m92VKcwDIjHd/rv3V7AuDJalYbfYav83Q=
X-Received: by 10.200.6.132 with SMTP id f4mr2209777qth.32.1507022516729; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 02:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.103 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <fc21c6f8478d407c8daec2f57fd43455@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local>
References: <CAKKJt-cDv+USfTPJENe4HcNb9_LOYEEaXogLX9-c==Zm4F4mmw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF46C47EBC@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAKe6YvN--ong9n2HwG_qxF+95MxvhO8Nhs9mLXpHNKyOZsE_9w@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF46C4E06A@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAKKJt-dxHZG2jtZ+VizZbBUHYOgND_Q8N=75gx=rBK1EZ4vFKQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF48F7C3EA@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAKe6YvNfH4AGng+PruohNHx5Om+fzs_WC4m9Gc_=1=CB1_DQHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKe6YvP4J-DDiKa4N9+xAAJBJx9L4+4zFk9rS2aDdpdtJ9Hhow@mail.gmail.com> <fc21c6f8478d407c8daec2f57fd43455@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local>
From: Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:51:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKe6YvPGtEVG+PX6qO5sYpY6DG_Yp+XyRTF-t0b62dYXUq4OPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fioccola Giuseppe <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark.all@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) (cpignata@cisco.com)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/TR9Ihop0LMoovsaur3ePhABxzW8>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:22:02 -0000

Thanks Fioccola. Looking forward to the next revision :) Happy to help.

Regards
Vinayak

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Fioccola Giuseppe
<giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it> 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:vinayakh@gmail.com]
> Inviato: domenica 1 ottobre 2017 22:54
> A: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark.all@ietf.org; Spencer Dawkins at IETF; Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
> Oggetto: Fwd: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
>
> 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 <vinayakh@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
> To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
> Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
>
>
> 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) <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
>> Hi Vin,
>>
>> reminder for this review,
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:59 PM
>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> Cc: Vinayak Hegde; Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Al,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:14 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> <acmorton@att.com>
>> 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:vinayakh@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:21 PM
>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF; Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
>>
>>
>>
>> I am okay with doing it over the weekend.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vinayak
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Sep 2017 23:19, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for your request, Spencer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are there any volunteers to review this draft?
>>
>>
>>
>> Al
>>
>> pm-dir admin
>>
>>
>>
>> From: pm-dir [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Spencer
>> Dawkins at IETF
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:31 PM
>> To: pm-dir@ietf.org
>> Cc: Benoit Claise
>> Subject: [pm-dir] Request for RFC 6390 review of
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear PM-Dir,
>>
>>
>>
>> As the responsible AD for this draft, I'd like to request an RFC 6390
>> review for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> pm-dir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir
>>
>>
>
> 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.