Subject: Re: [ippm] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:18:04 -0400

(adding ippm-list, .all alias for the draft does not seem to include it)

FYI - the official announcement below, please note points for discussion:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: 
                          Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets
        Authors         : Al Morton
                          Joachim Fabini
                          Nalini Elkins
                          Michael S. Ackermann
                          Vinayak Hegde
	Filename        : draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2015-08-06

Abstract:
   This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
   2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
   The memo updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC
   2330 to include IPv6 packets.  It also augments distinguishing
   aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC
   2330.

   Two points (at least) are worthwhile discussing further: extent of
   coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and the continued need
   to define a "minimal standard-formed packet".

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; [email-masked]; General
> Area Review Team
> Cc: Fred Baker (fred) ([email-masked])
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
> 
> Hi Brian,
> CC: Fred Baker,
> see below...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:53 AM
> > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [email-masked];
> > General Area Review Team
> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > On 03/08/2015 06:45, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> >
> > <big snip>
> >
> > > If we seek to identify several more distinctions for "packets of
> > > Type-P", then I would prefer to update the RFC 2330 Framework
> > > Section
> > > 13 on this topic, so it's more widely applicable and less IPv4-
> centric.
> > > I'll take immediate steps to accomplish this update.
> >
> > Yes, I think that is much more constructive than trying to do it
> > piecemeal in the 2679bis draft. Perhaps you can contrive to plant a
> > "forward reference" to 2330bis here, by saying that future extensions
> > of the "packets of Type-P" definition will apply. That would take care
> > of all my issues in one go.
> >
> >    Brian
> 
> [ACM]
> Besides planting the forward reference,
> I assembled a knowledgeable author team and we produced a first draft
> update to RFC 2330 in the areas of Type-P and standard-formed packets.
> Thanks for your early suggestions on the text.
> 
> Also, thanks to Fred Baker who helped us understand some of the IPv6
> complexities.
> 
> The 00 text is here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00
> 
> Comments welcome,
> Al
> (for the co-authors)