Markdown Version | Session Recording

Session Date/Time: 04 Nov 2024 13:00

ippm

Summary

The IPPM working group session at IETF 121 in Dublin covered a packed agenda, primarily focusing on adopted working group documents, documents related to adoption, and lightning talks (though the latter were cut short due to time constraints). Key discussions revolved around IOM data integrity, capacity protocol, hybrid two-step protocol, stamp extensions, quality of outcome, and alternate marking deployment. A strong emphasis was placed on securing reviews and participation from working group members for advancing various drafts. Several documents were identified as potential candidates for working group last call.

Key Discussion Points

• IOM Data Integrity:
  • Received a comprehensive sector review from Benjamin Caduc.
  • A call for more reviews from working group experts was made.
  • Four volunteers (including Greg) committed to reviewing the updated draft.
• Capacity Protocol:
  • Early sector review completed with positive feedback on authentication and encryption approach following CFRG advice.
  • Optional UDP checksum added for low-end devices.
  • Discussion on readiness for working group last call, contingent on a formal seconder review.
  • Implementation exists within the open broadband initiative.
• Hybrid Two-Step Protocol:
  • IANA early review comments addressed.
  • Changes made to IAM HEC header format.
  • Potential combination with REM Dex trigger packet for alternate marking discussed.
  • Draft deemed potentially ready for working group last call.
• Stamp Extension for Asymmetrical Packets:
  • Comments from Zhiqiang Li and Rudiger being addressed.
  • Clarification of security considerations regarding replay attacks.
  • Discussion on renaming the draft to reflect asymmetrical traffic rather than just packets, to better capture the scope including variable packet numbers.
• Stamp Extension for Reflecting Stamp Back Headers:
  • Procedures updated for reflecting extension headers and added for fixed IP headers.
  • Concerns addressed regarding ambiguity with multiple extension headers of the same length.
  • Discussion on potential inclusion of reference to work on combining active tools and hybrid methods for hop-by-hop measurements.
• Quality of Outcome:
  • Updates included added explicit loss requirement and calculation.
  • Presented results from a user trial with Comcast customers, showing positive user feedback.
  • Discussion on relating scores to specific application services like WebEx, Zoom, etc.
  • Conversation on network congestion, particularly with Wi-Fi, and its impact on user experience.
  • Concerns about throwing away the worst 5% measurement outliers, which contain signal for performance issues.
• ALTMark Deployment:
  • The scope of the draft clarifies the deployment of the alternate marker method.
  • Additional alternatives for the application of the Altamark method to IPV6 and to MPLS
• Young Data Model for the Altamark method:
  • This draft specified the young data model for the alternate marking method.
• On-path Telemetry for Active Performance Measurement:
  • This document provides active test packet that can be used in combination with hybrid method to perform on-path active measurement.
  • It was suggested to update the reference to the "six men draft" with the new merged draft that's replaced it.
• Stamp extension for a multi-path:
  • Discussion about that the current transition node can do that check for the STEM TV
  • Recommendation to aid MPR's data plan solution to this draft

Decisions and Action Items

• IOM Data Integrity: Authors to update the draft with sector review feedback and solicit reviews from the identified volunteers before the next last call.
• Capacity Protocol: Issue a working group last call, formally requesting a seconder last call review.
• Stamp Extension for Asymmetrical Packets: Authors to address Rudiger's comments and consider changing the name to reflect asymmetrical traffic.
• ALTMark Deployment: Reviewers were asked to comment if they have any further information.
• Quality of Outcome: Bjorn will refine document in light of feedback.

Next Steps

• The working group will schedule last calls for documents deemed ready, contingent on reviews and updates.
• Authors of drafts related to adoption will continue to refine their drafts and solicit feedback.
• Discussions on Lightning Talk proposals to continue on the mailing list.
• Warren will continue to solicit people for leadership within the area.