**Session Date/Time:** 18 Mar 2024 23:30

# ippm

## Summary
The IPPM working group meeting at IETF 119 focused on updates to adopted documents, in-depth discussions of documents nearing adoption, and lightning talks introducing new work.  A major administrative update was announced: IPPM has moved from the transport area to the operations and management (ops) area. Key discussion points included PDMv2, Quality Outcome metric, Alternate Marking Deployment, IOM Integrity, and several new proposals.

## Key Discussion Points

*   **PDMv2:** Update presented, revised draft submitted based on list feedback. Another last call is anticipated. Implementation and interoperability testing planned for the next hackathon.
*   **Quality Outcome Metric:** Significant updates include incorporating application quality metrics requirements. Discussion on packet loss handling with a suggestion to model it separately with "perfection" and "unusability" thresholds. The concept of network requirements was discussed, and the idea that these can also be viewed as application requirements and adaptive.
*   **Alternate Marking Deployment:**  The draft aims to provide deployment guidance for RFC 9341 and 9342, focusing on manageability, configuration, and data export. The need for clarification on deployment to stabilize the draft was emphasized.
*   **IOM Integrity:**  A deep dive into header field selection and integrity protection compromises.  Several options for validation were presented, with a focus on "don't trust any node" approach. Direct Export was identified as having lighter security requirements than other options.
*   **STAMP Extension for Reflecting Time Packet Headers:** The draft enables reflection of IPv6 options and MPLS network action headers within STAMP. The working group is considering the adoption of this draft.
*   **Exporting IOM Data with IPFIX:** Discussion on adopting the draft and if it should be done in IPPM or opsAWG. Comments suggest a more generic approach to exporting data, independent of the IOM trace type, focusing on exporting collected operational state and data.
*   **Reflected Packet Control Extension for STAMP:**  Technical and editorial updates were presented, including clarifying the inter-packet interval unit. A discussion ensued on handling cases where the number of reflected packets is set to zero (unidirectional testing) and potential conflicts with existing mechanisms. Security implications of allowing asymmetry were raised.
*   **Multipath Flag for IOM:** A proposal for a new flag to indicate multipath measurement. The concept was met with resistance from the working group due to cloning of packets and network intrusiveness. The proposal that entropy (flow label/FAT) should be used was well received.
*   **YANG Data Model for Alternate Marking:** Merged version of existing models, following the IOM YANG model structure for compatibility.
*   **Integrating AM into IOM:** A new proposal to leverage Alternate Marking messages within IOM. Concerns were raised regarding motivation, given existing separate standardization efforts and the potential for applying both methods concurrently.

## Decisions and Action Items

*   **PDMv2:** Chairs to consider another last call.
*   **Quality Outcome Metric:** Authors to address outstanding comments on the mailing list, particularly regarding throughput and creating network requirements.
*   **IOM Integrity:** The authors will proceed with Option 2 as the main solution in the draft and mention IPsec as an alternative.
*   **Exporting IOM Data with IPFIX:** To be discussed with the AD and ops area to determine the best venue for adoption.
*   **STAMP Extension for Reflecting Time Packet Headers:** Adoption to be considered.
*   **Reflected Packet Control Extension for STAMP:** Authors to consider limiting the number of reflected packets and addressing security concerns related to asymmetry, particularly regarding DDoS risks.
*   **Customer Experience Index:**  Review the Quality Outcome Metric document and align as appropriate.

## Next Steps

*   Authors to revise drafts based on meeting feedback.
*   Chairs to initiate adoption calls for relevant drafts.
*   Working group to review updated drafts on the mailing list.