[ippm] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployme nt-05 (Ends 2026-05-28)
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=40huawei.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]> Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:43:49 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ippm,gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============7190128214441212935== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f657a975c7534a3f812d86f8c22a808bhuaweicom_" --_000_f657a975c7534a3f812d86f8c22a808bhuaweicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alex, Thanks again. Please see inline [GF]. Regards, Giuseppe From: Alex Huang Feng <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 5:59 PM To: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]>; draft-ietf= [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]= g Subject: Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 (E= nds 2026-05-28) 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 "includes considerations and guidance". I feel that "co= nsiderations" are covered, while "guidance" we could have a bit more text a= round. For example, end of section 2, it states that the controlled domain could b= e including the (1) CPE or the (2) PE. One could ask which parameters (sing= led-marked vs doubled-marked, which period is better, etc...) 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 wa= s expecting some text around those lines. [GF]: Ok, I will add some text. The choice of the method (single marking/do= uble marking) or the marking period depends on the measurement accuracy and= frequency we want to have. - In Section 6, 7 and 8, we have references to other documents, this is ver= y 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 h= ere: 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 t= hese 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 fe= w IETFs. Can the authors verify if they are still active? IETF meeting acti= vity says otherwise. [GF]: Yes these documents are still active. - (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 Submi= ssion rather than an IETF document. [GF]: Ok. I we can also highlight this point. - (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 a= t IPPM. Good. (I will provide feedback at IPPM). [GF]: Thanks! - (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-distribute= d-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-nvo= 3-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 dr= afts, where the authors could abandon the document if not adopted. Please c= heck with the other authors if some of the documents are not planned to bec= ome RFC anymore. [GF]: Good suggestion! But it can happen. At the time of the publication yo= u are not sure if all the works will be continued. - Editorial: s/YANG Push/YANG-Push/ (to align with terms from RFC8641) s/periodical subscriptions/periodic subscriptions/ (to align with terms fro= m RFC8641) s/leafes/leafs/ [GF]: Ok - First sentence of Section 7.2 should reference RFC8641 instead of RFC8639= : OLD: For YANG Push [RFC8639], ... NEW: For YANG-Push [RFC8641], ... [GF]: Ok Regards, Alex On 29 May 2026, at 09:10, Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com@dmarc= .ietf.org<mailto:marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to all who have contributed, while we do see good support we also go= t 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= . BR Marcus on behalf of IPPM/BMWG chairs -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]= g>> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2026 12:03 To: [email protected]<mailto:draft-ietf-ippm-alt= [email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]= g>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]= >; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 (Ends 2026-05= -28) This message starts a WG Last Call for: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05 This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-05-28 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. Abstract: This document provides a framework for Alternate Marking deployment and includes considerations and guidance for the deployment of the methodology. File can be retrieved from: Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the pu= blication of this document by replying to this email keeping [email protected]<= mailto:[email protected]> in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestio= ns to resolve them are highly appreciated. Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual P= roperty Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisio= ns 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]. Thank you. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-0= 5 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deploy= ment-05 _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:ippm-leave@ietf.= org> --_000_f657a975c7534a3f812d86f8c22a808bhuaweicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:= //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"= > <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" style=3D"word-wrap:brea= k-word"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Alex,<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks again.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Please see inline [GF].<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Giuseppe<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in = 0in 0in"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@ins= a-lyon.fr> <br> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 3, 2026 5:59 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]>= ;; [email protected]<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; bmwg-chairs@= ietf.org<br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deploymen= t-05 (Ends 2026-05-28)<o:p></o:p></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Dear Marcus, alt-mark-deployment authors, IPPM and B= MWG,<o:p></o:p></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I read the document, it is well-written and I suppor= t its publication. Here some comments:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- The abstract says “includes considerations a= nd guidance”. I feel that “considerations" are covered, wh= ile "guidance” we could have a bit more text around. <o:p><= /o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">For example, end of section 2, it states that the co= ntrolled 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…) a user SHOULD deploy in an environment including the CPE and which parameters SHOULD be used on one t= hat only covers the PE. Are they different? Are they not? I was expecting s= ome text around those lines.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Ok, I will add some text. The choice of the me= thod (single marking/double marking) or the marking period depends on the m= easurement accuracy and frequency we want to have.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- In Section 6, 7 and 8, we have references to other= documents, this is very welcomed. However, there are some references that = are expired:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (1) I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang, this one is in WG= LC, good (my comments here: <a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/ar= ch/msg/ippm/G_YsERqR4C5GZWyHPZBKarr2Evs/">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch= /msg/ippm/G_YsERqR4C5GZWyHPZBKarr2Evs/</a>)<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (2) [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit], [I-D.ietf-idr-b= gp-ifit-capabilities], [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit]: these are adopted document= s. I am not active at these WGs, but I assume they will become RFCs. By doi= ng a search on the IDR and PCE agenda, they have not been discussed during the WG meeting for a few IETFs. Can th= e authors verify if they are still active? IETF meeting activity says other= wise.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Yes these documents are still active.<o:p></o:= p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (3) The authors reference draft-fz-spring-srv= 6-alt-mark-17 in Section 7. This is now RFC9947. Please update. Note also t= his one is Independent Submission rather than an IETF document.<o:p></o:p><= /p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Ok. I we can also highlight this point.<o:p></= o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (4) I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark is in WGLC= . Good<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (5) I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang is a= dopted and being discussed at IPPM. Good. (I will provide feedback at IPPM)= . <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (6) I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step is at the IESG. = Good.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (7) I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement and I= -D.wang-ippm-ipv6-distributed-flow-measurement are individual documents. Th= e second one is expired.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (8) I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam is adopted. Good.<o:p><= /o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (9) I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm, I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-ns= h-pmamm and I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark are individual submissions. Some of th= em are expired.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- (10) I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking also= individual still.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I think it is useful to have all these references, i= t provides a wide view of the applicability of AltMark. My only worry is th= e expired individual drafts, where the authors could abandon the document i= f not adopted. Please check with the other authors if some of the documents are not planned to become RFC anymo= re.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Good suggestion! But it can happen. At the tim= e of the publication you are not sure if all the works will be continued.<o= :p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- Editorial:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">s/YANG Push/YANG-Push/ <span style=3D"color:bla= ck">(to align with terms from RFC8641)</span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">s/periodical subscriptions/periodic subscriptions/ (= to align with terms from RFC8641)<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">s/leafes/leafs/<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Ok<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">- First sentence of Section 7.2 should reference RFC= 8641 instead of RFC8639:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">OLD:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">For YANG Push [RFC8639], …<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">NEW:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">For YANG-Push [RFC8641], ...<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">[GF]: Ok<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Alex<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> <br> <o:p></o:p></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">On 29 May 2026, at 09:10, Marcus Ihlar <<a href= =3D"mailto:marcus.ihlar=3D40ericsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]">marcus.ihlar=3D40e= ricsson.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Thanks to all who hav= e contributed, while we do see good support we also got some substantive re= views.<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 <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">= [email protected]</a>><br> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2026 12:03<br> To: <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">draft-i= [email protected]</a>; <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>; <a href= =3D"mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected]</a>; <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>; <a h= ref=3D"mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected]</a><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 deploy= ment<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 pu= blication of this document by replying to this email keeping <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> in copy. Objections shou= ld be explained and suggestions to resolve them are highly appreciated.<br> <br> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual P= roperty Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].<br> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisio= ns 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] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/">https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/bcp78/</a><br> [2] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/">https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/bcp79/</a><br> [3] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/">https://datatrack= er.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/</a><br> <br> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:<br> <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deploy= ment/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment= /</a><br> <br> There is also an HTMLized version available at:<br> <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-d= eployment-05">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mar= k-deployment-05</a><br> <br> A diff from the previous version is available at:<br> <a href=3D"https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-alt-= mark-deployment-05">https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-= ippm-alt-mark-deployment-05</a><br> _______________________________________________<br> ippm mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">ippm= [email protected]</a><br> <br> <br> <br> <o:p></o:p></p> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_f657a975c7534a3f812d86f8c22a808bhuaweicom_-- --===============7190128214441212935== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KaXBwbSBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QgLS0gaXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZwpUbyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsIHRv IGlwcG0tbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============7190128214441212935==--