A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-05

[Ballot comment]
I support Alissa's discuss.

Alissa's comment reads as being more focused on privacy considerations and this point should be expanded to consider operational security considerations that have been around for a long time, but were not in the original text of this RFC.  Collecting measurement data or using measurement data for reconnaissance to later attack systems is quite common.  Access to this data or the ability to use measurement techniques to do reconnaissance activity should be guarded agist or at least noted as a security consideration.  When you look at text to address her comment, please expand it to include this operational security consideration as it is a very real and present threat.  This is pretty much the same as my discuss on the other IPPM draft.

Thank you.

[Ballot comment]

I support Alissa's DISCUSS.  The newly added comment in 3.6 about
transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or
else some justification should be offered. I would have hoped for
a fuller exposition of the positive and negative impacts of
encryption, or none.

- the secdir review [1] notes some nits.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05920.html

[Ballot comment]
(reviewing only the changes)

-- 3.6: I concur with Alissas's DISCUSS about the added sentence about the impacts of transport encryption.

-- 5.4: Why not just remove the deprecated statistic?

Nits:

-- section 1:
If there's another update, I suggest moving this to an appendix and not leave it up to the RFC editor to decide. Also, do you expect the RFC editor to remove the opening note? If so, I recommend saying so explicitly.
s/differencer/differences

[Ballot discuss]
I am confused about the last sentence in this methodology step in Section 3.6:

"+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
  packet of Type-P with these addresses.  Any 'padding' portion of the
  packet needed only to make the test packet a given size should be
  filled with randomized bits to avoid a situation in which the
  measured delay is lower than it would otherwise be due to compression
  techniques along the path.  Note that use of transport layer
  encryption will counteract the deployment of network-based analysis
  and may reduce the adoption of network-based payload optimizations
  like compression."

I don't understand what is implied about the relationship between transport layer encryption and one-way delay measurements. I thought the metric defined in this document was generally used for end-to-end measurement of delay, so I don't understand what "network-based analysis" has to do with this methodology step. Is the implication that if the measurement packet is encrypted at the transport layer that delay will change? If that is true, isn't the metric itself agnostic to that consideration -- that is, couldn't that be precisely what the person doing the measurements wants to measure? I could quibble with the conclusions of the note itself (e.g., increased transport layer encryption may change but not necessarily reduce network-based "analysis" of various sorts), but mainly I do not understand how it relates to the specification of the metric.

Unfortunately the rationale given in Section 1 ("Added text recognizing the impending deployment of transport layer encryption in section 3.6") does not clarify this either. What impending deployment is this referencing?

[Ballot comment]
From Section 6:

"The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active
  measurements described in this memo.  Unlike passive measurements,
  there can be no release of existing user data."

I realize this is text from RFC 2679, but I think it would be good to update it to reflect what has been learned since the publication of that document. The mere fact that a host is involved in conducting measurements could well be considered privacy-sensitive in some contexts. And a collection of measurements about a host, even active measurements, could leak information about the host's connectivity/availability/etc. if not appropriately safeguarded. I don't think this changes the protocol requirements for this document, but I do think the text above should note these aspects (perhaps similar to how it's done in ). It's not quite correct to say there can be no release of existing user data.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03, and its reviewer has the following comments:

IANA has a question about this document's IANA Considerations section.

IANA understands that the authors have indicated that this document is not requesting any IANA actions.

However, RFC 2679, which is obsoleted by this document, is the reference for the A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM MIB. Please see:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib

What do the authors intend to change so that the MIB's references to RFC2679 are changed to [ RFC-to-be ]? Or do the authors intend some other action?

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM'
  as Internet Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
  packets across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and
  discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is
  assumed to be familiar with that document.  This memo makes RFC 2679
  obsolete.

Please note:
  This memo is replacing a very old Proposed Standard, making minimal changes.
  Please evaluate its suitability for

  There are two normative references to Informational RFCs:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Internet Standard. See section 1 of the draft for a detailed discussion. The document being replaced, RFC 2679, is a proposed standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
packets across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and
discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330. This document replaces (obsoletes) RFC 2679.

Working Group Summary

There was nothing unusual or controversial.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Surveyor Implementation Report for RFCs 2679-2680: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/60/slides/ippm-6.pdf

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-implement-02


Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

See slides and documents referenced in “Document Quality”.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny.  The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document was reviewed by the document shepherd for which changes were suggested and implemented in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

It has support across the working group in general and participants familiar with the topic support the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Note downward refs documented by idnits  in question #15.

From idnits:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2679, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC2679 though, so this could be OK.

The abstract states, “This memo makes RFC 2679 obsolete.”

Other idnits issues have been reviewed and fixed where appropriate.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

From idnits:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312

As discussed with Al Morton, editor:

“In the past, Wes Eddy put in a standing exception for 2330, the original framework.
We should ask for a similar exception for RFC 7312, which updates 2330, and has the
same status.

“In any case, Downrefs like these have to be on the exception list,
or specifically noted in the IETF Last Call Notice.”

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 2679. RFC 2679 was a proposed standard; the new document will be an Internet standard.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

As stated in the draft, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.” There are no IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.