[ippm] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployme nt-05 (Ends 2026-05-28)
Alex Huang Feng <[email protected]> Wed, 3 Jun 2026 17:59:21 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ippm,gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============4635512826981369087== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F4426BB-47EF-49B4-A201-FED2230827BB" --Apple-Mail=_5F4426BB-47EF-49B4-A201-FED2230827BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear Marcus, alt-mark-deployment authors, IPPM and BMWG, I read the document, it is well-written and I support its publication. = Here some comments: - The abstract says =E2=80=9Cincludes considerations and guidance=E2=80=9D= . I feel that =E2=80=9Cconsiderations" are covered, while "guidance=E2=80=9D= we could have a bit more text around.=20 For example, end of section 2, it states that the controlled domain = could be including the (1) CPE or the (2) PE. One could ask which = parameters (singled-marked vs doubled-marked, which period is better, = etc=E2=80=A6) a user SHOULD deploy in an environment including the CPE = and which parameters SHOULD be used on one that only covers the PE. Are = they different? Are they not? I was expecting some text around those = lines. - In Section 6, 7 and 8, we have references to other documents, this is = very welcomed. However, there are some references that are expired: - (1) I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang, this one is in WGLC, good (my = comments here: = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/G_YsERqR4C5GZWyHPZBKarr2Evs/) - (2) [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit], = [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities], [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit]: these = are adopted documents. I am not active at these WGs, but I assume they = will become RFCs. By doing a search on the IDR and PCE agenda, they have = not been discussed during the WG meeting for a few IETFs. Can the = authors verify if they are still active? IETF meeting activity says = otherwise. - (3) The authors reference draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17 in Section = 7. This is now RFC9947. Please update. Note also this one is Independent = Submission rather than an IETF document. - (4) I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark is in WGLC. Good - (5) I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang is adopted and being = discussed at IPPM. Good. (I will provide feedback at IPPM).=20 - (6) I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step is at the IESG. Good. - (7) I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement and = I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow-measurement are individual = documents. The second one is expired. - (8) I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam is adopted. Good. - (9) I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm, I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm and = I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark are individual submissions. Some of them are = expired. - (10) I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking also individual still. I think it is useful to have all these references, it provides a wide = view of the applicability of AltMark. My only worry is the expired = individual drafts, where the authors could abandon the document if not = adopted. Please check with the other authors if some of the documents = are not planned to become RFC anymore. - Editorial: s/YANG Push/YANG-Push/ (to align with terms from RFC8641) s/periodical subscriptions/periodic subscriptions/ (to align with terms = from RFC8641) s/leafes/leafs/ - First sentence of Section 7.2 should reference RFC8641 instead of = RFC8639: OLD: For YANG Push [RFC8639], =E2=80=A6 NEW: For YANG-Push [RFC8641], ... Regards, Alex > On 29 May 2026, at 09:10, Marcus Ihlar = <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]> wrote: >=20 > Thanks to all who have contributed, while we do see good support we = also got some substantive reviews. > In addition, we have requested an early ops-dir review, with a = deadline set to Friday, June 5. > We will extend the last call for this duration, so more reviews are = welcome. >=20 > BR > Marcus on behalf of IPPM/BMWG chairs >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2026 12:03 > To: [email protected]; = [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 (Ends = 2026-05-28) >=20 > This message starts a WG Last Call for: > draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 >=20 > This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-05-28 >=20 > Please note that this WGLC runs in parallel with a last call for = draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang with the intention of progressing both = documents at the same time. >=20 > Abstract: > This document provides a framework for Alternate Marking deployment > and includes considerations and guidance for the deployment of the > methodology. >=20 > File can be retrieved from: >=20 > Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with = the publication of this document by replying to this email keeping = [email protected] in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to = resolve them are highly appreciated. >=20 > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the = Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in = BCP 79 [1]. > Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the = provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware = of any. > Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy = can be found at [3]. >=20 > Thank you. >=20 > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/ >=20 > There is also an HTMLized version available at: > = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-= 05 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > = https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deplo= yment-05 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_5F4426BB-47EF-49B4-A201-FED2230827BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Dear Marcus, = alt-mark-deployment authors, IPPM and BMWG,<div><br></div><div>I read = the document, it is well-written and I support its publication. Here = some comments:</div><div><br></div><div>- The abstract says =E2=80=9Cinclu= des considerations and guidance=E2=80=9D. I feel that =E2=80=9Cconsiderati= ons" are covered, while "guidance=E2=80=9D we could have a bit more text = around. </div><div>For example, end of section 2, it states that = the controlled domain could be including the (1) CPE or the (2) PE. One = could ask which parameters (singled-marked vs doubled-marked, which = period is better, etc=E2=80=A6) a user SHOULD deploy in an environment = including the CPE and which parameters SHOULD be used on one that only = covers the PE. Are they different? Are they not? I was expecting some = text around those lines.</div><div><br></div><div>- In Section 6, 7 and = 8, we have references to other documents, this is very welcomed. = However, there are some references that are expired:</div><div>- (1) = I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang, this one is in WGLC, good (my comments = here: <a = href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/G_YsERqR4C5GZWyHPZBKarr= 2Evs/">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/G_YsERqR4C5GZWyHPZBKarr2= Evs/</a>)</div><div>- (2) [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit], = [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities], [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit]: these = are adopted documents. I am not active at these WGs, but I assume they = will become RFCs. By doing a search on the IDR and PCE agenda, they have = not been discussed during the WG meeting for a few IETFs. Can the = authors verify if they are still active? IETF meeting activity says = otherwise.</div><div>- (3) The authors = reference draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17 in Section 7. This is = now RFC9947. Please update. Note also this one is Independent Submission = rather than an IETF document.</div><div>- = (4) I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark is in WGLC. Good</div><div>- = (5) I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang is adopted and being = discussed at IPPM. Good. (I will provide feedback at = IPPM). </div><div>- (6) I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step is at the = IESG. Good.</div><div>- (7) I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement = and I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow-measurement are individual = documents. The second one is expired.</div><div>- (8) = I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam is adopted. Good.</div><div>- (9) = I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm, I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm and = I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark are individual submissions. Some of them are = expired.</div><div>- (10) I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking also = individual still.</div><div><br></div><div>I think it is useful to have = all these references, it provides a wide view of the applicability of = AltMark. My only worry is the expired individual drafts, where the = authors could abandon the document if not adopted. Please check with the = other authors if some of the documents are not planned to become RFC = anymore.</div><div><br></div><div>- Editorial:</div><div>s/YANG = Push/YANG-Push/ <span style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: = rgb(0, 0, 0);">(to align with terms from = RFC8641)</span></div><div>s/periodical subscriptions/periodic = subscriptions/ (to align with terms from = RFC8641)</div><div>s/leafes/leafs/</div><div><br></div><div>- First = sentence of Section 7.2 should reference RFC8641 instead of = RFC8639:</div><div>OLD:</div><div>For YANG Push [RFC8639], = =E2=80=A6</div><div>NEW:</div><div>For YANG-Push [RFC8641], = ...</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Alex</div><div><div><br><b= lockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On 29 May 2026, at 09:10, Marcus Ihlar = <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]> wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Thanks to all who have = contributed, while we do see good support we also got some substantive = reviews.<br>In addition, we have requested an early ops-dir review, with = a deadline set to Friday, June 5.<br>We will extend the last call for = this duration, so more reviews are welcome.<br><br>BR<br>Marcus on = behalf of IPPM/BMWG chairs<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: = Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker <[email protected]><br>Sent: Thursday, = 7 May 2026 12:03<br>To: [email protected]; = [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; = [email protected]<br>Subject: WG Last Call: = draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 (Ends 2026-05-28)<br><br>This = message starts a WG Last Call = for:<br>draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05<br><br>This Working Group = Last Call ends on 2026-05-28<br><br>Please note that this WGLC runs in = parallel with a last call for draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang with the = intention of progressing both documents at the same = time.<br><br>Abstract:<br> This document provides a = framework for Alternate Marking deployment<br> and includes = considerations and guidance for the deployment of the<br> = methodology.<br><br>File can be retrieved = from:<br><br>Please review and indicate your support or objection to = proceed with the publication of this document by replying to this email = keeping [email protected] in copy. Objections should be explained and = suggestions to resolve them are highly appreciated.<br><br>Authors, and = WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual Property = Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 = [1].<br>Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with = the provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are = aware of any.<br>Sanctions available for application to violators of = IETF IPR Policy can be found at [3].<br><br>Thank you.<br><br>[1] = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/<br>[2] = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/<br>[3] = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/<br><br>The IETF datatracker = status page for this Internet-Draft = is:<br>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deploymen= t/<br><br>There is also an HTMLized version available = at:<br>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-depl= oyment-05<br><br>A diff from the previous version is available = at:<br>https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-alt-mar= k-deployment-05<br>_______________________________________________<br>ippm= mailing list -- [email protected]<br>To unsubscribe send an email to = [email protected]<br><br><br><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>= </div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_5F4426BB-47EF-49B4-A201-FED2230827BB-- --===============4635512826981369087== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KaXBwbSBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QgLS0gaXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZwpUbyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsIHRv IGlwcG0tbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============4635512826981369087==--