Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-03-06
Requested 2020-02-21
Authors Giuseppe Fioccola , Mauro Cociglio , Amedeo Sapio , Riccardo Sisto
I-D last updated 2020-03-05
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06-genart-lc-dunbar-2020-03-05
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2020-03-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2020-03-05
IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-06
IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12

This document is to expand P2P flows marking methodology to measure unicast
flows in  multipoint-to-multipoint network. The mechanism is quite interesting.
However, I do have some questions:

Page 9 (Section 5: Multipoint Packet Loss): Second paragraph stating that "the
sum of the number of packets on all ingress interfaces equals the number on the
egress interfaces for the monitored flow".

how to measure? with all nodes having different timer, it would be difficult to
quantify the time period. At any given time T, egress node may count packets
entered at T-x. Where to draw the line? packets may traverse different routes
through the network, and can take different time.

Section 6.1 Algorithm for Cluster Partition:
How do you partition the cluster if the Application ingress the network via
different nodes?

Major issues: None
Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 5: first sentence on the policies to classify flows: should allow
additional conditions that are not in the packet header as part of matching

Thank you very much.

Linda Dunbar