[Detnet] A question about draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 07 November 2021 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C713A0D32; Sun, 7 Nov 2021 13:01:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yd2xKop9m0Rs; Sun, 7 Nov 2021 13:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B123A0D38; Sun, 7 Nov 2021 13:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id f4so54238849edx.12; Sun, 07 Nov 2021 13:01:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KuZGftlc6gFnHjW/Ag/0LHvQDQ64RBzdIYn363wmkBk=; b=nMVLt2FSP6UF3Ruan0Vxj2hi750Rx0uiWHa4fuQpvoElUs4Te1BNpSES1AM6fjQYmG vCpPDs40Gqur82sqaZlEnuAtimofLi2uBT2lB8WjJ942QQKuzWwSQCLomnlDmqH5jSK8 gakRN3FFssms60srHNFWo4oa975A3MVCKpafaPfuA9Ic97EcgWNAEG5x1jA650cJwUkW iE9Hnn1sQW/GYOur787odg/1SPJ2ibKsM5GRtCvfLcqsvpC+7NP88BFWDkE9rDpHTw7m JLnQXgqtDPvw3GJWZHuqSJ5JinhBbJXN1p5DxYOUhd4Rs2lo0LzeXPnBZL0KcGJwnhpN i7gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KuZGftlc6gFnHjW/Ag/0LHvQDQ64RBzdIYn363wmkBk=; b=VxvlmhphjjfgLvTUkoN937Y/kuOZwkoR/jCRmyRPyYPwlSxzCPNtFgxew3KheQpF3A r3ErsqMXW8VuqRa8XEmjyg/MgLTSFv42G2sAnzIr0YlLWaWgoQhw/WnjqUxSheqYx1qZ rz9PJFp53ODxQ8y2ED/AfANU3rr7+mhgKBWQhF9bjZrUCyR3tTpNsTj7/OjKUsppBHmg DDXKIssS0anSZZmg7zOb7VQUMv6TygcuvqYJPQf1BA2kVc/tuwez1Bf3YWqz+MDsWrVX CfWHa3BLz2XpBD82GxFvE1tr4hUNCricdNYvnzq3MOhViG0M59LVOEFGkUJzvThpbC+K Fuew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323J9/ppIPhJbOd4xXtYPvM/zRdPTfYell9CklDbY/+R/T1re/i 5BWIzWAJwUmVGcHtSyZs7TvWlEwH7QPHNBL/wZxvWSKMqAk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyP5BkM/W7WjZCgDtFUGpJTjyPTgMWlmsy1CFovNNBBhc45/vgKX7FmxIuJdi2P9Q+WqyppOgI6LoycGT9q2XM=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:8744:: with SMTP id 4mr100878592edv.100.1636318892772; Sun, 07 Nov 2021 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 13:01:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUqHA3iOO+kpRtoxX1VpXss8KDeT01JrGTGq8cLLg-EkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000057d6d605d0392ec6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/eaBc7Nu65FD48bpVOmbCTjfIuK0>
Subject: [Detnet] A question about draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 21:01:42 -0000

Dear Authors,
I've read the draft and would appreciate your clarification to my question:

   - What benefits do you see in defining two new ACH types for STAMP
   protocol over a PW?

I believe that there are no apparent advantages of using PW, i.e., without
IP/UDP headers, encapsulation compared to using IP/UDP. The latter can be
easily done using ACH types 0x0021 and 0x0057 for IPv4 and IPv6 address
family respectively.

What do you think?

Regards,
Greg