Subject: [ippm] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:11:52 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6118

Thank you for writing this. Note that I'm using a new tool for
balloting, apologies in advance if it goes Boom!
Also apologies for the terseness / tone, still getting use to the
tooling, and not sure what shows up where.

COMMENTS
S 1.
>      aspects of IP packets can influence its processing during transfer
>      across the network.
>
>      In Section 15 of [RFC2330], the notion of a "standard-formed" packet
>      is defined.  However, the definition was never updated to include
>      IPv6, as the original authors planned.

Nit: This is slightly ambiguous - it is unclear if "As the authors
intended, it was not updated", or if the authors planned to update it,
and never did.

S 3.
>      This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to
>      determine C.
>
>      Load balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where
>      such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM
>      measurements.  Load balancers often use flow identifiers, computed as

I think you might want "load balancers and routers" here. Generally a
load-balancer is used to mean something which chooses a server (or
cluster of servers) to direct a packet / transaction to. Hashing to
choose amongst parallel paths is more likely to be a router (yes, the
terminology gets squishy - a router doing this is in fact load-
balancing amongst links / paths, but...)

S 3.
>      fields that are used for the forwarding decision, are not known when
>      measuring the path as a black-box.  Potential assessment scenarios
>      include the measurement of one of the parallel paths, and the
>      measurement of all available parallel paths that the load balancer
>      can use.  Knowledge of a load balancer's flow definition
>      (alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header

I realize that RFC2330 also used this term, but it was less jarring
there (it is also only used once)  - I think that you might want to
clarify that "class C" is used here in a different way to "class C
addresses".

I don't have any text to suggest though...

S 4.
>      o  Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
>         size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.
>
>      o  Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
>         Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
>         hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.

I'm confused here - why do you need to add the "or 255 bit"?

Are you saying that a IPv4 packet that has a TTL of 255 sent to a
destination that is 300 hops away is still "standard-formed"? (not
that that would work anyway!)

Surely just saying "Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to
travel from the Source to the Destination" is enough? (255, as used by
some protocols is more than sufficient for their single hop).

This feels like over specifying, leading to confusion.

S 4.
>         the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming
>         order (Next Header).
>
>      o  All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
>         in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
>         Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P].

I'm confused again -- this says that all parameters must be in the
"IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters". Ok, cool.
But which part of that registry isn't specified by
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml?

(why the "partly")?

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 22:37:50 +0000

Hi Warren,
Thanks for your review.
Let's take a look at your comments.

Co-authors, see Warren's last comment, in particular.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:12 PM
... 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mozphab-
> 2Dietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net_D6118&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=G64fdxkDTnWJmF84jgKSBF8S_wrWq
> gmTfJnCQ7jGiW0&s=Pr5JlVAobowwNzyTQIF_ut6srvRo-hGsprLnyfGh-WA&e=
> 
[acm] 

Ok. I'm replying the traditional way, but I'll create a login 
(if I can) and try Phabricator, too.

> intended, it was not updated", or if the authors planned to update it,
[acm] 
I see. How about:
s/ original authors planned./ authors originally desired to do./

> balancing amongst links / paths, but...)
[acm] Sure, your addition of "and routers" is better, thanks.

> I don't have any text to suggest though...
[acm] 
I do, earlier in the section:

	This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to 
	determine class C (a designation which has no relationship to address 
	assignments, of course).
> that that would work anyway!)
[acm] 
Yes, because we may not know the number of hops needed to reach Dest.
and if we inspect the packet after it has been generated it may
have the max TTL since it hasn't encountered any decrementing hops. 
> This feels like over specifying, leading to confusion.
[acm] 
Well, I just checked RFC2330, and this TTL bullet is a direct quote.
Confusion about this has been limited, AFAICT.

> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_ipv6-2Dparameters_ipv6-2Dparameters.xhtml-
> 3F&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=G64fdxkDTnWJmF84jgKSBF8S_wrWq
> gmTfJnCQ7jGiW0&s=gtOpgKho-LZA3yORp0NrSwzxLVUdL66yFsnsfj3pYmg&e=
> 
> (why the "partly")?
> 
[acm] 
I don't recollect why we said "partly" there. 
But this is recently edited text (Last Call comments, I think)
and we should be able to resurrect the rationale...

Al

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:32:28 -0400

> (if I can) and try Phabricator, too.
​I believe that anyone can create a login on this (Mozilla provided)
instance.
It seems to me like it works well, and I think makes reviews and responding
to them friendlier / nicer.

Of course, if you prefer mail, this works too... ​

> s/ original authors planned./ authors originally desired to do./

​WFM.​

> [acm] Sure, your addition of "and routers" is better, thanks.

​Excellent!​

>         determine class C (a designation which has no relationship to

​Oh. Well, there you go then :-) Somehow I'd missed that... ​

> Confusion about this has been limited, AFAICT.

​Okey dokey.​

> and we should be able to resurrect the rationale...

​That would be nice -- if there is a problem with the registry, it seems
that we can / should fix it. I'm also not quite sure how I'd determine if
I'm in compliance with the above.

Anyway, all my comments were just comments, thanks for addressing them.
W​

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:30:37 +0000

Hi Warren,

...
[acm]

​Oh. Well, there you go then :-) Somehow I'd missed that... ​
[acm]
You didn’t!  You said you didn’t have suggested text,
so I proposed to add the phrase in parentheses which
addresses your worthy comment.

I’ve added this fix and all others agreed in the working copy.

[acm] …snip…

[acm]

​That would be nice -- if there is a problem with the registry, it seems that we can / should fix it. I'm also not quite sure how I'd determine if I'm in compliance with the above.

Anyway, all my comments were just comments, thanks for addressing them.
W​
[acm]
You’re welcome, I’m still waiting to hear from co-authors on this one.
Al

Al

--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:15:02 +0000

Hi Warren,

Before you head South, let’s close the book on your last comment:

…
[acm]

[acm]

It seems that the word partly was left behind when we changed the
text from:

   o  All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
      in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
      Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045].

where we cited the RFC and not the Registry, and partly was correct!
I'll simply delete "partly".

thanks for catching my editing error!
Al

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:13:33 -0400

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:15 PM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> *…*
> *[acm] *
> *You’re welcome, I’m still waiting to hear from co-authors on this one.*
>
> *Al*
>
>
>
> *[acm] *
>
>
>
> *It seems that the word partly was left behind when we changed the*
>
> *text from:*
>
>
>
> *   o  All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found*
>
> *      in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)*
>
> *      Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045].*
>
>
>
> *where we cited the RFC and not the Registry, and partly was correct!*
>
> *I'll simply delete "partly".*
>
>
>

Ah, awesome, thanks!

W

*thanks for catching my editing error!*
> *Al*