Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS)

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 11 September 2019 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6052E12007A; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IdgmLB8QowOg; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 299CB12006B; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r26so41670202ioh.8; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FCgiBm1hhwMgu0m3rdBwNSq3f/4U+M06cOSYBJhLyao=; b=Jvh5l60bqKCIXWNJCp+yzpPe2O2HG3Zk7DSTNYUkDP/RHUNwnRQfaOCUDE9aunGSQW AGkXkcbf9yyuk+IALvikIU4m7Yojz3mpy74u8+1EciHE0eJumAQeZS85rPPObHvFPjCV Z4YoMA5A+nLWHHOhehA8LIiv12hRFmrFPLBIaCrqcfR+DbmHVko6qg5tJuzRtGPqNmxB t8lReccgyVuwLPvoWnDEkgLm8yTHgARx8QbqJyVC+xQeN/FfrQcDrkTlEQsyvGI052G5 9tfS0pryKM/i4NYuAbn05wtlXTP+n1NnAKPvuJcPd5quFycNdO1ihOWZGh+uhj5RzRwy +LAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWEUA9rosDn8Tp6AJeU4OPdrOHJWGdOHm4sr2HJYzWmex5nAJv mp0P6C3WQgloMTe4ZlPsj6mi9y0bpKXrcL+mvXw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbaiNZXA33AVGeP1tPlNgbhlRbILERkCd8lmNG4M+1WrUwdZEjfXK0GGQpxHfpxupoX5/bFzF1tnpkLIeTGP0=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c558:: with SMTP id g24mr25050049jaj.140.1568160918143; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:15:07 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Tal Mizrahi <>, IPPM Chairs <>, IETF IPPM WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:15:22 -0000

Hi, Greg, and thanks for the response.

I think a minor rephrasing of the requirement isn't enough, really.
As I understand it now, after other discussion, it's not that you need
agreement from the users, but that you should put a paragraph (or
maybe a separate section, to highlight the point) that says that this
is not intended for use on the open Internet nor on production
networks, and gives examples of what it *is* intended for... perhaps
test networks, production networks during advertised maintenance
windows, that sort of thing.  And then you don't need to say that the
network's users need to agree, but simply that they need to be aware
that performance testing will be happening during period X, and that
disruptions to normal network operation are possible.  You'd need to
come up with text that the working group agrees with, of course, but I
think that if you do it will address my concern as well as some of the
others that were raised.

Does that make sense?


On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:01 PM Greg Mirsky <> wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> thank you for your pointed question. Please find my explanation and the proposed updated below under the GIM>> tag.
> Regards,
> Greg
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:53 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <> wrote:
>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: Discuss
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> Please refer to
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm sure this will be easy to either explain to me or re-phrase:
>> Sections 4 and 6 both say something like "MUST be agreed by all users of the
>> network".  What does that really mean?  How is it remotely possible to get
>> agreement from all users of your network?  How is it remotely possible that
>> they could understand what you're asking them to agree to?
> GIM>> Yes, looking at the bigger picture, at the Internet rather than only at the domain where the test will be performed makes such condition unattainable. Would s/network/network domain where the test is planned/  so that it reads as:
> ... MUST be agreed by all users on the network domain where the test is planned ...
> make it clearer and the number of parties involved reasonable, practical?
> As for what the could be the question users will be asked, I think that it should verify whether the application that has the port number assigned is active as the same number will be used as the destination port number in the STAMP test.