Subject: [alto] IESG evaluation results

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:22:14 -0800

The IESG ballot did not go particularly well.

Not enough ADs read the drafts to advance any of the documents, which is
unfortunate and reflects poorly on the IESG. However, there are numerous
useful and straightforward reviews, DISCUSS and otherwise, that we can
immediately address.

To the extent that author resources are limited, I suggest you focus on
resolving issues on unified-props, as this is the prerequisite for others
and the changes are straightforward. I will nag the ADs to move forward
with reviews and clearing DISCUSSES, starting with this draft.

There are two DISCUSSes that are worthy of some, well, discussion:

1) I believe that Roman's suggestion that path-vector move to Experimental
is valid, as to my knowledge there is not a lot of experience with
obscuring network details. I see no normative references to this draft, so
this would not create problems down the road.

2) We will have to do something about performance-metrics. In the telechat,
we agreed that metrics collection is out of scope. However, more precise
definitions of these metrics are in scope. I would suggest finding RFCs in
the ippm WG stream that contain useful definitions and using those.

Martin

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:06:39 -0500

Hi Martin,

Add the WG, so that we can hear others' comments as well. Please see below
for a small addition.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Y. Richard Yang <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Martin,
>
> Thanks a lot for the update! A quick reply on performance metrics.
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:22 PM Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) We will have to do something about performance-metrics. In the
>> telechat, we agreed that metrics collection is out of scope.
>>
>
> Not sure I understand what metrics collection refers to. Could you please
> add a bit of detail?
>
>
>> However, more precise definitions of these metrics are in scope. I would
>> suggest finding RFCs in the ippm WG stream that contain useful definitions
>> and using those.
>>
>
> Going down the path ippm can lead to potential issues. The current metrics
> definitions are more based on deriving path metrics from link metrics
> reported in the routing system (e.g., BGP-LS). This is how current
> deployment (e.g., Flow Director, Lui's team) works and hence is proven to
> be feasible. I do not see that the routing systems will start to ask
> routing devices to measure link properties using ippm measurements, and
> then report using routing protocols. Then conforming to ippm measurement
> metrics can lead to higher deployment barriers. We sure can take a look but
> want to point out the potential problem first.
>
>
Almost all metrics are derived from BGL-LS metrics (RFC8571). Hence, it is
not clear what more precise definitions mean. Does it mean that those
definitions in RFC8571 (which are defined in IGP existing IGP protocols)
are not precise, and hence should not be used (and hence switch to ippm
type of metrics, which specify many more parameters such as traffic
patterns)? Or it means that the performance metric document should just
make a single reference, and the IGP metrics as already defined by IETF are
acceptably "precise".

Or maybe it is only about the tput metric, and if so, we can discuss it
carefully.

Thanks a lot,
Richard

> Thanks.
> Richard

---

From: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:43:20 +0000

Hi Martin,

Thanks a lot for this feedback. The authors of unified-props are preparing responses with a focus on the DISCUSSES. The intent is to address the DISCUSSES in separate dedicated e-mails and come back with later e-mails on the comments.

Sabine

From: alto <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 7:22 PM
To: IETF ALTO <[email-masked]>
Subject: [alto] IESG evaluation results

Not enough ADs read the drafts to advance any of the documents, which is unfortunate and reflects poorly on the IESG. However, there are numerous useful and straightforward reviews, DISCUSS and otherwise, that we can immediately address.

To the extent that author resources are limited, I suggest you focus on resolving issues on unified-props, as this is the prerequisite for others and the changes are straightforward. I will nag the ADs to move forward with reviews and clearing DISCUSSES, starting with this draft.

1) I believe that Roman's suggestion that path-vector move to Experimental is valid, as to my knowledge there is not a lot of experience with obscuring network details. I see no normative references to this draft, so this would not create problems down the road.

2) We will have to do something about performance-metrics. In the telechat, we agreed that metrics collection is out of scope. However, more precise definitions of these metrics are in scope. I would suggest finding RFCs in the ippm WG stream that contain useful definitions and using those.

Martin

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:49 -0800

Hi Richard,

Yes, I agree that metric collection is out of scope. However, to the extent
that we can import very precise definition (perhaps saying that ALTO
servers SHOULD post measurements as close to this definition as possible?)
it will save a lot of text and review.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:06 AM Y. Richard Yang <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Going down the path ippm can lead to potential issues. The
>> current metrics definitions are more based on deriving path metrics from
>> link metrics reported in the routing system (e.g., BGP-LS). This is how
>> current deployment (e.g., Flow Director, Lui's team) works and hence is
>> proven to be feasible. I do not see that the routing systems will start to
>> ask routing devices to measure link properties using ippm measurements, and