Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-01-25
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-01-18
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-01-15
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-12-15
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | This document now replaces draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, draft-tempia-ippm-p3m, draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework, draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm instead of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework, draft-tempia-ippm-p3m, draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm |
2017-12-14
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-12-14
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-12-14
|
14 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-12-13
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2017-12-13
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-12-13
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | This document now replaces draft-tempia-ippm-p3m, draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework, draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm instead of draft-tempia-ippm-p3m |
2017-12-07
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-12-07
|
14 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-14.txt |
2017-12-07
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-07
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-12-07
|
14 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-30
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-11-30
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I see that there was agreement with the addition as suggested by the SecDir reviewer and I also agree with these suggested additions, … [Ballot comment] I see that there was agreement with the addition as suggested by the SecDir reviewer and I also agree with these suggested additions, but I don't see them in the version under review. Are these planned additions already, if not, could you please add in that text? https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/dYwXHZ__a4o9qPA8LXEfHj0URg4 Thank you! |
2017-11-30
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] The normative SHOULD in Sec 5.1.1 seems a bit troubling. If there is to be a normative recommendation about this, wouldn't it be … [Ballot comment] The normative SHOULD in Sec 5.1.1 seems a bit troubling. If there is to be a normative recommendation about this, wouldn't it be a MUST? If not, under what circumstances would it be ok to flip header bits at one endpoint or at an intermediate node to color a packet when the other endpoint might interpret those bits as being used for a different purpose? |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] What is the nature of the experiment? Section 5.1 seems to describe an experiment that predates publication, but I don't see anything to … [Ballot comment] What is the nature of the experiment? Section 5.1 seems to describe an experiment that predates publication, but I don't see anything to describe why the draft is experimental. |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Two minor comments: (1) For traceability purposes, it would be nice if the datatracker showed that draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m was replaced by draft-tempia-ippm-p3m…. The … [Ballot comment] Two minor comments: (1) For traceability purposes, it would be nice if the datatracker showed that draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m was replaced by draft-tempia-ippm-p3m…. The same for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework and draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm, which according to the Shepherd's write-up were precursors of this document. (2) What is the Experiment? I very much like the explanation in the Shepherd’s write up; having something like that in the document would be nice. |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-11-29
|
13 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-11-28
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Firstly, I'd strongly suggest that the authors address Eric's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13-opsdir-telechat-vyncke-2017-11-21/). I really like the concept / approach, but I … [Ballot comment] Firstly, I'd strongly suggest that the authors address Eric's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13-opsdir-telechat-vyncke-2017-11-21/). I really like the concept / approach, but I think that there are many places where the document hand-waves away some of the details - like how do I configure this (and more importantly, how do I detect) so that I'm not making in too many places, and having one device stomp on another devices' markings? Section 3.1.1 says that it is desirable to have a single node coloring -- is this supposed to mean a single node *per network* (which makes this useless)? Or somehow per flow (then how do I know who's the right device to mark?) Perhaps devices should watch for already colored packets if they are intending to color, and alert on this case as an error? More operational guidance would go a long way towards making this more operational useful - as this is Experimental I'm not making this a discuss. I had some comments and questions: 1: The document lists 8 authors above the fold. This may be must better as an Editor (or two) and the rest moved to contributors. 2: The document is Experimental, but I don't really see (perhaps I missed it) a description of the experiment to be performed -- Section 5.1 has a writeup of experience gained from running this at TI, but that seems more like a separate Informational document. Nits: Section 1. Introduction "The lack of adequate tools to measure packet loss with the desired accuracy drove an effort to design a new method for the performance monitoring of live traffic, possibly easy to implement and deploy." -- did you mean "possibly" here? This makes it sound like having it easy to implement and deploy isn't a goal/ desirable, more like a lucky coincidence if it happens... Section 1. Introduction "In case the marking field is obtained by changing existing field values of" -- perhaps: "In cases where the marking..."? Actually, this whole sentence feels a bit clumsy. Section 2. Overview of the method "Since a flow is continuous and cannot be stopped when a counter has to be read, it could be difficult to determine exactly when to read the counter. " -- I think that this would be better if it were "it can be difficult" or "it would be difficult". Section 3.1. Packet loss measurement "Traffic coloring could be done by R1 itself or by an upward router." -- what is an "upward" router? Was this supposed to be upstream? Even if so, I think that there needs to be more precision here. |
2017-11-28
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-11-21
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Eric Vyncke. |
2017-11-11
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] A couple of high level comments on the structure and intention of this document: 1) As the shepherd write-up states „this specification does … [Ballot comment] A couple of high level comments on the structure and intention of this document: 1) As the shepherd write-up states „this specification does not define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by different protocols“ therefore I think it should be informational. 2) I think section 5.1 should be moved to the appendix or even into a new document that could be send to the ISE. If the intention is that DSCP marking is explained as an example, there is no need to talk about Telecom Italia or any specific details of their implementation. The level of detail for the DCSP approach should stay similar as for sections 5.2-5.4 with no need to mention that this is in use by Telecom Italia. Respectively, section 8 does also not need to name Telecom Italia’s deployment but can simply refer to the use of DSCP as one example. 3) There is quite some redundancy in the text that could be removed and would make the document shorter and even easier to read. Respectively, I don’t think section 7 as well as some of the motivation text in the intro is needed. Nits: 1) maybe s/a live traffic flow/an active traffic flow/ … not sure what is meant with „live“ here. 2) In section 9, this is incorrect: „Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to the IP header of data packets…“ as using DSCP is just one possible implementation. It should say probably instead: „Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to a header or encapsulation of the data packets…“ Similarly, this sentence should be adapted: „The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited because the method only relies on information contained in the IP header without any release of user data.“ |
2017-11-11
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-11-07
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2017-11-07
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2017-10-27
|
13 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2017-10-27
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-10-27
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-10-26
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2017-10-25
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13.txt |
2017-10-25
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-25
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-10-25
|
13 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-23
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | Telechat date has been changed to 2017-11-30 from 2017-10-26 |
2017-10-23
|
12 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. |
2017-10-23
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Eric Vyncke. |
2017-10-12
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-10-12
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-10-06
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-10-26 |
2017-10-03
|
12 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-12.txt |
2017-10-03
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-03
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-10-03
|
12 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-02
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-10-02
|
11 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-11.txt |
2017-10-02
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-02
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-10-02
|
11 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-28
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ White. |
2017-09-28
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2017-09-28
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-09-21
|
10 | Carlos Pignataro | (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? … (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? The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia. Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of RFC, and it is indicated in the first page. (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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report on the operational experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application. Working Group Summary The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all the WGLC comments in a timely fashion. While the document contain a single Editor, it lists more than five authors. The history and rationale for that is as follows: the ideas on this methodology originated and were introduced to the IETF from two I-Ds: draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm and draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m. Most recently, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m targeted the IPPM WG, and was renamed to draft-tempia-ippm-p3m. After adotpion in IPPM, it merged with the descriptive portions of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework (the architectural portions were deamed out of scope for IPPM. This union added more value to the work because it completed the technical explanation of the methodology. Consequently new authors joined the draft after this merge. Document Quality There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc. This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as per . Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans to implement these methods. No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates are necessary. Personnel Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 such reviews needed. However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir. (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. No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (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. Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at . See: Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following IPR call . All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello, M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.) And also, IPR Disclosure 3071 is filed against this document, at . (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption. (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? The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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. No. (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. No. (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). The document requests no IANA actions. (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. N/A. (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. N/A. |
2017-09-21
|
Jasmine Magallanes | Posted related IPR disclosure: Telecom Italia SpA's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark | |
2017-09-20
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2017-09-20
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2017-09-20
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-09-20
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
2017-09-18
|
10 | Brian Haberman | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list. |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: cpignata@cisco.com, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Carlos Pignataro , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: cpignata@cisco.com, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Carlos Pignataro , draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring' as Experimental RFC 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 2017-09-28. 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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report is provided in order to explain an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2557/ |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2017-09-14
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Requested Last Call review by GENART |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Requested Last Call review by SECDIR |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-09-13
|
10 | Carlos Pignataro | (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? … (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? The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia. Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of RFC, and it is indicated in the first page. (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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report on the operational experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application. Working Group Summary The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all the WGLC comments in a timely fashion. While the document contain a single Editor, it lists more than five authors. The history and rationale for that is as follows: the ideas on this methodology originated and were introduced to the IETF from two I-Ds: draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm and draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m. Most recently, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m targeted the IPPM WG, and was renamed to draft-tempia-ippm-p3m. After adotpion in IPPM, it merged with the descriptive portions of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework (the architectural portions were deamed out of scope for IPPM. This union added more value to the work because it completed the technical explanation of the methodology. Consequently new authors joined the draft after this merge. Document Quality There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc. This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as per . Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans to implement these methods. No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates are necessary. Personnel Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 such reviews needed. However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir. (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. No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (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. Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at . See: Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following IPR call . All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello, M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.) (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption. (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? The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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. No. (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. No. (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). The document requests no IANA actions. (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. N/A. (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. N/A. |
2017-09-11
|
10 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10.txt |
2017-09-11
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-11
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-09-11
|
10 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-07
|
09 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-09.txt |
2017-09-07
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-07
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-09-07
|
09 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-05
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-09-05
|
08 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-08.txt |
2017-09-05
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-05
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-09-05
|
08 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-02
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Sent feedback from AD Evaluation to the shepherd, CC everyone. |
2017-09-02
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | (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? … (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? The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia. Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of RFC, and it is indicated in the first page. (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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report on the operational experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application. Working Group Summary The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all the WGLC comments in a timely fashion. Document Quality There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc. This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as per . Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans to implement these methods. No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates are necessary. Personnel Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 such reviews needed. However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir. (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. No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (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. Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at . See: Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following IPR call . All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello, M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.) (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption. (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? The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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. No. (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. No. (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). The document requests no IANA actions. (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. N/A. (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. N/A. |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Brian Trammell | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-07.txt |
2017-08-31
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-31
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-08-31
|
07 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-03
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-03
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-03
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-02
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-02
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-08-02
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-30
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-30
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-30
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-30
|
06 | Carlos Pignataro | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-25
|
06 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-06.txt |
2017-07-25
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-25
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-07-25
|
06 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-11
|
05 | Brian Trammell | Notification list changed to Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> |
2017-07-11
|
05 | Brian Trammell | Document shepherd changed to Carlos Pignataro |
2017-06-27
|
05 | Brian Trammell | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2017-06-26
|
05 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-05.txt |
2017-06-26
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-26
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-06-26
|
05 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-24
|
04 | Brian Trammell | Added to session: IETF-98: ippm Mon-0900 |
2017-03-01
|
04 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-04.txt |
2017-03-01
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng |
2017-03-01
|
04 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-08
|
03 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt |
2017-02-08
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , "Gregory Mirsky" , "Luca Castaldelli" , "Alessandro Capello" |
2017-02-08
|
03 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-09
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | Added to session: IETF-97: ippm Mon-1550 |
2016-10-28
|
02 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-02.txt |
2016-10-28
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , "Gregory Mirsky" , "Luca Castaldelli" , "Alessandro Capello" |
2016-10-28
|
01 | Giuseppe Fioccola | Uploaded new revision |
2016-07-07
|
01 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-01.txt |
2016-06-30
|
00 | Brian Trammell | Added to session: IETF-96: ippm Tue-1400 |
2016-06-10
|
00 | Maddy Conner | This document now replaces draft-tempia-ippm-p3m instead of None |
2016-06-10
|
00 | Giuseppe Fioccola | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-00.txt |