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

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> 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=NnXGCbZHM9KqT5VqVXjo12eZNeP
> cxXJAUXpQjGJkMt4&s=280bz7tua9j8MODtCOgrPkwiNMgCxBzR5rZkPdXPQmk&e=