Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58C412015A; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 05:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 zq5ZCysRU4IQ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 05:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (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 353D512004D; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 05:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id x3so10181246lfn.6; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 05:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1XJEXXTCZgbi7Ed1Ndv9JVwd4xNFIAv/bTpBKxyg5YQ=; b=NAqm1F1dWgVEqAcx1HU+cVAsH1DIXD0kkz6AT2+6NxTtOrwsSd69M5z0Wkqk2ceO5+ BVgSHmVkyZv3Ip54Fojd6VaOCtlAyQ28HKBlpayatcDfKHPT2gGvpYNe27tRFMvwEzH0 zhKHwa9f0nBG6rHKqcPOEFhm2TDMWSjYPLgw6umvbG0DAmW7NLVwRWKR5O8+5XD/0Evx aHLYx1+8sKvlV7eq+M1bozbYtdnOs+AUonk2t6fjLre7xf8AnmwbsOtUZCLryeTZKO+c G0gbn9Cg9huXe1CSvQE40H8s8DoIavshY6KJDWQh6ln3xOW1XFXiEs0Mo5oM3jEJl4Ai TYqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1XJEXXTCZgbi7Ed1Ndv9JVwd4xNFIAv/bTpBKxyg5YQ=; b=FheNPbm0KgpjcK+8QvkqZJAFtErl/rBDNs1+pqObO42cpbpqHE1la5I3DAaYXgMEGe kG6R8cmXNQ614SN2IQT0/ROtaSfCmribGNhJZgWF9pLzZaN1fWyWjsNlCVJKmE7fm1mA u2YF5mM0xy+1TE5MO63+1owPT+UmNmjir61ZEphQGQoXlvgc4RBUdlJ2tldjB/eD1a5K ACSYbUyzMejlRPMCZYxx+OuySPLu8fJPhXPHKjGzf4LGrng++gy1rLUgqs7p7p7H0bd+ E/AGiTMeiNrlcKvOP+RwvIfZsgIov1EwpY20RQKmZYOLAeaZjPbr13fpITZ40fHObIXr d25w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV3c4GmTLqXza7D8bcm6ZG+N5hB0gI5CfLEJmbDAji6COejSb6h u3cY8X9TAlG2BFalqCqktTOL4Z4FhPCNcEN/HA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiM5b0jVkLBUoEgdh8Mb6Wf1K7cHdRPTYa45I1tWawjP5/B+Xuv4hdmtgV6mHNe+3mYw7J4Xopt6mgzS/W0U8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:e006:: with SMTP id x6mr5713091lfg.165.1565182557200; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 05:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6f=x1j_fXAoqZ874y0nw7Y1wP0OeS9eFuToSBQfrqkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVWZ3utikyBRm4TDhRDuMd3cZ9-otbuX=Mbg0ioAGjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eJf2xjsRJwnBtd5KFHbwO4KX3gEjs_Nv1Dhf39ZWjegA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHTjpbWv4FGpOsfL94Zip3MsVvESyka5M8PrmNKFB=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6dGneYXFr3Xk_DuQnbwa=-ObV_SNdGOSj1Z203wW-PzTg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppn9jpCLaSLR3QSN=yA0uDyXXMCQ+Rm4qFrR5OrjS31Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eidFR-doLCvMim6HJZ142q_Q0V7XmiLP6Ki5_jmNvUxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:55:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6e=eDds8fEWgqTs6anYb0m2jciZ7EHBtNtNWp3i6s+0=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, rrahman@cisco.com, Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054a505058f8676b3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/-4WtxdvRVBHOaLDicobhWI0Ce00>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 12:56:05 -0000

Thanks Henrik.
Adding the authors of the TWAMP Yang model to see if they have any thoughts
on the UDP port range. It is still not an RFC, so may be this comment can
be addressed if needed.
Thanks,
Rakesh


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:30 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com> wrote:

> The range probably comes from the IANA definition of the ephemeral ports
> (49152 to 65535) although these are defined for short-lived TCP and not
> explicitly for UDP. Why this made it into the yang model for TWAMP-test
> (which is UDP) I dont know, probably someone mixed it up with TCP and it
> passed the reviewers without much thought.
>
> Most, if not all, implementations of TWAMP I have seen does not impose
> limitations on the source UDP ports for the TWAMP-test packets when
> configuring via CLI. For example neither Accedian, Exfo, Viavi, Juniper,
> Nokia, Huawei impose any limitation like that when configuring via CLI or
> GUI.
>
> With a yang model based configuration the user will of course be limited
> if they use the yang model that only defines the ephemeral range as valid.
> I see no severe disadvantages of this, but it would of course have been
> better if the yang model was less restrictive, since the restriction has no
> real value in itself.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:07 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Henrik. Where does this requirement come from? Also, how do I
>> configure the UDP port outside the range using the TWAMP Yang model?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:19 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a distinction between "must be able to send to these
>>> destination ports" and "must only be able to send to these destination
>>> ports"
>>>
>>> The first wording does not prohibit senders to be able to send also to
>>> other destination ports.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for the reply.
>>>>
>>>> As there are already implementations out there where such restrictions
>>>> do not exist as discussed in another email thread (just forwarded them),
>>>> the following text with MUST is already violated. The TWAMP Yang model
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-13> should
>>>> also not place such restriction.
>>>>
>>>> Section 4.4
>>>>
>>>>        Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>>>>
>>>>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>>>>
>>>>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should
>>>> find a
>>>>
>>>>        port number that both devices can use.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rakesh
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rakesh,
>>>>> my apologies for the misspelling of your name.
>>>>> Thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed update.
>>>>> Regarding the definition of the range of the valid UDP port numbers,
>>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
>>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-13> uses type
>>>>> dynamic-port-number as follows:
>>>>>      typedef dynamic-port-number {
>>>>>        type inet:port-number {
>>>>>          range 49152..65535;
>>>>>        }
>>>>>        description "Dynamic range for port numbers.";
>>>>>      }
>>>>> to specify the valid range for a sender-udp-port. The range for a UDP
>>>>> port number of a Session-Reflector has been specified slightly differently
>>>>> because it includes the well-known port 862:
>>>>>            leaf reflector-udp-port {
>>>>>              type inet:port-number {
>>>>>                range "862 | 49152..65535";
>>>>>                }
>>>>>              description
>>>>>                "The destination UDP port number used in the
>>>>>                 TWAMP-Test (UDP) test packets belonging to this
>>>>>                 test session.";
>>>>>            }
>>>>> But, as we observe, in both cases definitions include the
>>>>> Dynamic/Private range explicitly defined. I think that keeping STAMP
>>>>> specification consistent with the TWAMP, TWAMP YANG data model in
>>>>> particular, in the way the valid range of UDP ports is being specified, is
>>>>> beneficial to the STAMP document. Hope you'll agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Greg for considering my review comments. Good to see the
>>>>>> message format aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv and using MBZ
>>>>>> 30. This should fix the interoperability issue between the two. This also
>>>>>> gives few (3) bytes for any future extensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may fix the spelling of my name and another typo below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and Rakesh Gandi or their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and Rakesh Gandhi for their
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not see following comment addressed. Is that intentional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks Greg for the reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     In this case, should the draft just state that the
>>>>>> Session-Sender can select destination UDP port number following the
>>>>>> guidelines specified in [RFC6335], instead of specifying following?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 4.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system
>>>>>> should find a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        port number that both devices can use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Rakesh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rakesh,
>>>>>>> thank you for your helpful comments. We've updated the format of the
>>>>>>> base STAMP test packet. Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes,
>>>>>>> comments and questions,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>>>> Regarding the size of the padding, yes, it's good to use the same
>>>>>>>> size payload for query and response.
>>>>>>>> However, the STAMP payload with TLV extension
>>>>>>>> (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01) has slightly different padding size
>>>>>>>> (27 ( or > 29) vs. 30). Is there a way to make them compatible? Does it
>>>>>>>> mean that for STAMP with TLV, Server Octets is set to 1, but it says MBZ 0
>>>>>>>> for all 30 bytes. If the responder supports Server Octets and see the size
>>>>>>>> > 27, it may find the Server Octet size of 0 confusing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Rakesh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Shahram,
>>>>>>>>> thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers
>>>>>>>>> below tagged GIM>>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <
>>>>>>>>> shahram.davari@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HI Greg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read your draft and have the following questions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one
>>>>>>>>>> from TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver
>>>>>>>>>> differentiate between TWAMP and STAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
>>>>>>>>> OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination
>>>>>>>>> UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the
>>>>>>>>> Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    - challenges in achieving interoperability among
>>>>>>>>>    implementations of TWAMP-Light;
>>>>>>>>>    - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in
>>>>>>>>>    IP broadband access networks (TR-390);
>>>>>>>>>    - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to
>>>>>>>>>    support measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>    consistency of CoS in the network.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test
>>>>>>>>> packets the default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it
>>>>>>>>> to be supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thx
>>>>>>>>>> Shahram
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mirja,
>>>>>>>>>> thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
>>>>>>>>>>       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be
>>>>>>>>>> carefully
>>>>>>>>>>       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services
>>>>>>>>>> MUST
>>>>>>>>>>       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
>>>>>>>>>>       [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling
>>>>>>>>>> network load
>>>>>>>>>>       for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test
>>>>>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>>>>>>       depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to
>>>>>>>>>> stay in
>>>>>>>>>>       the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
>>>>>>>>>> draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <
>>>>>>>>>> ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Mirja,
>>>>>>>>>>> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the
>>>>>>>>>>> document is very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is
>>>>>>>>>>> useful. While reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and
>>>>>>>>>>> guidance in other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5
>>>>>>>>>>> Implications of RTT and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would
>>>>>>>>>>> adding the reference to that section in the new text proposed for the
>>>>>>>>>>> Security Considerations section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational
>>>>>>>>>>> reference as it is BCP.
>>>>>>>>>>> > NEW TEXT:
>>>>>>>>>>> >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be
>>>>>>>>>>> carefully
>>>>>>>>>>> >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing
>>>>>>>>>>> services MUST
>>>>>>>>>>> >       be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section
>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.5 in
>>>>>>>>>>> >       particular before launching the test session...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could have a separate sentence like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network
>>>>>>>>>>> load for UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic
>>>>>>>>>>> depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the
>>>>>>>>>>> limits as provided in RFC8085.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or something similar…
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a
>>>>>>>>>>> downref. However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mirja
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> > Greg
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <
>>>>>>>>>>> ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Greg,
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it
>>>>>>>>>>> would be useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
>>>>>>>>>>> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I
>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you
>>>>>>>>>>> resend you proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these
>>>>>>>>>>> changes. Sorry for the unconvience.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Mirja
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Hi Mirja,
>>>>>>>>>>> > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful
>>>>>>>>>>> comments. Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the
>>>>>>>>>>> diff.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Greg
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <
>>>>>>>>>>> ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Hi authors, hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd
>>>>>>>>>>> write-up! I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > I believe this document should say something about network
>>>>>>>>>>> load and congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender
>>>>>>>>>>> scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could
>>>>>>>>>>> at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending
>>>>>>>>>>> should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more
>>>>>>>>>>> concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this
>>>>>>>>>>> document could be good.
>>>>>>>>>>> > > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security
>>>>>>>>>>> Considerations section points to the fact that STAMP does not include
>>>>>>>>>>> control and management components:
>>>>>>>>>>> > >    Because of the control
>>>>>>>>>>> > >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> > >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
>>>>>>>>>>> > > adding the new text here:
>>>>>>>>>>> > >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST
>>>>>>>>>>> be carefully
>>>>>>>>>>> > >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing
>>>>>>>>>>> services MUST
>>>>>>>>>>> > >       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test
>>>>>>>>>>> session.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain
>>>>>>>>>>> UDP port is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think
>>>>>>>>>>> you should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol.
>>>>>>>>>>> Just to make things crystal clear.
>>>>>>>>>>> > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first
>>>>>>>>>>> sentence of Theory of  Operations section:
>>>>>>>>>>> > >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP
>>>>>>>>>>> transport toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Mirja
>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > > P.S.:
>>>>>>>>>>> > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement
>>>>>>>>>>> test protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test
>>>>>>>>>>> protocol/
>>>>>>>>>>> > > -> “an” missing
>>>>>>>>>>> > > GIM>> Thank you. Done.
>>>>>>>>>>> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07...txt.html>
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>>>>>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Henrik Nydell*
>>> *Sr Product Manager*
>>> 1.866.685.8181
>>> hnydell@accedian.com
>>> <http://accedian.com>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/accedian/>  <https://twitter.com/Accedian>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/accedian-networks?originalSubdomain=ca>
>>> <http://www.accedian.com>
>>> *accedian.com <http://accedian.com>*
>>>
>>> Avis de confidentialité
>>>
>>> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce
>>> qui lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le
>>> secret professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de
>>> ses destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il
>>> vous plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
>>> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
>>> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
>>> Merci.
>>>
>>> Confidentiality notice
>>>
>>> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
>>> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
>>> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
>>> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
>>> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
>>> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> <http://accedian.com>
> <https://www.facebook.com/accedian/>  <https://twitter.com/Accedian>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/accedian-networks?originalSubdomain=ca>
> <http://www.accedian.com>
> *accedian.com <http://accedian.com>*
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>