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

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Wed, 10 July 2019 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.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 A6C431202B8; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=ASTfPOGw; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=CG4KQIMD
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 7mB6HtgTM5Bi; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA9F12037B; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=49255; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562772685; x=1563982285; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UUaVuxzEhVCskbpqbZR9qRldZbLmVblXcdiXbH+5r54=; b=ASTfPOGwl9HeElTA9SOzanyGspOQxyV9T2n4FQUl79VRTq+R5WV/mWGS u3ZKRh9bcA7K/6t4IjybCeyAfXXJ4v6vLiKj/4ASYgAMnEjYv+KG+RSfr ZJa51fwwnVMPnkdEUCaxXWbSJrVzC48w3aLiR+7ukaSnvHOJEYZeUYPqO U=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AV9JPRBUSoU7/En0qpSw25O34EGLV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankgE81EWF9k13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AoAADyAyZd/5FdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBVgIBAQEBCwGBFC8kBScDalUgBAsog1xAg0cDjkaCNiWJT41?= =?us-ascii?q?5glIDVAkBAQEMAQEYAQoKAgEBhEACF4I3IzcGDgEDAQEEAQECAQVthTwMhUo?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAgEBAQoGCAkEGQEBKQMLAQQLAgEGAg4DAwECASABBgMCAgIfBgsUCQg?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAENBSKDAAGBHU0DDg8BAgySJJBgAoE4iGBxfzOCeQEBBYUFDQuCEgMGgTQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BikCBHheBQD+BEScME4JMPoIaRwEBgToBEB0QCQwBCQKCUjKCJowES4IjhH0?= =?us-ascii?q?jiEaNFS1ACQKCGYgZhytPg3QbgiwvhnOEDIYYhBCMZUuJNo4MAgQCBAUCDgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYFmIoFYcBU7KgGCQYFJeIEmAQKCSIUUhT9ygSmMLAElgiwBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,475,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="580816254"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Jul 2019 15:31:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x6AFVLQO011438 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:31:21 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:31:20 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:31:20 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:31:20 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UUaVuxzEhVCskbpqbZR9qRldZbLmVblXcdiXbH+5r54=; b=CG4KQIMDr6PcMxaEx8ltqbJ9mpzovfDtzjQmiAV89JncG5YA32CWX8tzGgHyDi+RYeK4SfGRNLn5JZDGDXwSEGe0a6eTMF2x4zlFTnzP0Eyvd7M8lBWqJAA0MTT0mEZvQrkkwvhT81D+DAM30NY7wTPfNdRkCgX5hS3IL+ciEm8=
Received: from SN6PR11MB3278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.109.11) by SN6PR11MB3086.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.126.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.19; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:31:17 +0000
Received: from SN6PR11MB3278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5a3:55a2:2fb2:6810]) by SN6PR11MB3278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5a3:55a2:2fb2:6810%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.020; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:31:16 +0000
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
Thread-Index: AQHVNZ0+7z5WSZ7weEqWcphMhijoKabA4NeAgAAWDoCAAD6nAIAAJQyAgAAPUwCAACEDgIAAuYeAgAFwsYCAACzlAP//2K+A
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:31:16 +0000
Message-ID: <0DF461B1-39D6-4C52-9864-3B2974C526C0@cisco.com>
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> <CAMZsk6e-bcFNz327p_u6KEHV2qnJUytPwPmJVgXxEWbzsQr9OA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW01TgyXPAk3OGhdKqDTszkf0KzT+dDVTdaEhFu7GA7-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6cEhTQ57PkGD4C8DbK1dCeYghe+x7nQMv4TOtqNhFYzbA@mail.gmail.com> <F1AFB0A1-C9B8-459E-AC60-654F424F15EC@kuehlewind.net> <CALhTbpq7OcasLpCsmCKW=z1V6hQwBYKXateEHV+-fi+2dKwXsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALhTbpq7OcasLpCsmCKW=z1V6hQwBYKXateEHV+-fi+2dKwXsg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.b.190609
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rgandhi@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1005::8]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ac88687d-57d1-4b0d-6b4f-08d7054ba672
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR11MB3086;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR11MB3086:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR11MB308656F3B74473AF86E78FF0BFF00@SN6PR11MB3086.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6790;
x-forefront-prvs: 0094E3478A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(136003)(376002)(366004)(53754006)(199004)(189003)(54094003)(66574012)(36756003)(86362001)(30864003)(6486002)(5660300002)(14454004)(186003)(46003)(606006)(81156014)(81166006)(58126008)(102836004)(76176011)(8676002)(91956017)(71190400001)(71200400001)(66946007)(64756008)(6506007)(66446008)(66556008)(66476007)(53546011)(7736002)(76116006)(2906002)(54906003)(476003)(25786009)(99286004)(2616005)(236005)(110136005)(53936002)(14444005)(486006)(8936002)(256004)(5024004)(11346002)(6246003)(446003)(54896002)(6306002)(6512007)(4326008)(6436002)(966005)(478600001)(316002)(229853002)(68736007)(33656002)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR11MB3086; H:SN6PR11MB3278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Spe6IAV9wqUN6ROOnyUgNMkzlWOnlPLv9Ie6HvLxD1/9LYKibNDGnPwFf2c+u8a15BGvE0VqL6KLeBxcU6mAEVQszGOe+QpThdjaFcNVMtfV0wlet23EEDZUI2JSR57D80KSOz6yH+Qef5FMyzxjXAt2U57civEl3t6f9QF8g969sut2EmK4PWD7C96FQcSkeNUpsIgupN8xtfaSFezfs0EHPu8/OqJhxCZ6IA+kQxnT/ImV7I7qOeOW4OVINO3boca2IE9P9jGQHU4s8dJ3C93q6KyzBgOltLUf6CxKZVdQDJAQJ2KS92n4uRhXnR50lXISR5dmaltl8kGBUuSkl9bDTaPPDNkQnnfrtMLZ7qA2PNMAb/Zovas036w/MHGy7HyC60SOjO9MLFMAb3phD8hkkroVLBBIRvB+/KfYZtE=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DF461B139D64C5298643B2974C526C0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ac88687d-57d1-4b0d-6b4f-08d7054ba672
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Jul 2019 15:31:16.6838 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rgandhi@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR11MB3086
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.15, xch-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/5pdPUeQQMHTweqz4WpeC3PCZ0aE>
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, 10 Jul 2019 15:31:43 -0000

Thanks Mirja and Henrik.

FWIW, I am aware of an implementation of TWAMP-Light that does not put such range limit on the destination UDP port and it is up to the operator to provision an appropriate port number.

Thanks,
Rakesh


From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 9:52 AM
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Just keep in mind that in a typical TWAMP deployment today, which will apply to STAMP eventually, the user typically runs the tests in a private network and thus has control of what protocols run there, and should be allowed to use any UDP source and destination ports as required. This to be able to have simple firewall rules. I dont believe it is up to STAMP to put limitations here, recommendations are good but careful with MUSTs.

From my experience, 30% of users use destination port 862 UDP for TWAMP light (same port number as is used for Twamp control TCP packets), the rest typically a port of 4000 or higher. Source ports are common in the ranges 10000 upwards. This has been seen across many vendors of IP PM.

As a side note,
To create unique 4-tuples in a single TWAMP light responder, the UDP source port is typically increased at the sender if there is more than one test session between the sender-responder pair. Reason is that TOS(DSCP) is not a good candidate for 5-tuple qualification due to DSCP may be erroneously configured in the network, and for example always be 0 at the responder, this is something TWAMP/STAMP want to detect/report, and not rely on for session identification.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, 13:11 Mirja Kuehlewind, <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
Hi Greg, hi Rakesh,

I’m just happen to review the turnbis document which has this text:

"In all cases, the server SHOULD only allocate ports from the range
   49152 - 65535 (the Dynamic and/or Private Port range [Port-Numbers]),
   unless the TURN server application knows, through some means not
   specified here, that other applications running on the same host as
   the TURN server application will not be impacted by allocating ports
   outside this range.  This condition can often be satisfied by running
   the TURN server application on a dedicated machine and/or by
   arranging that any other applications on the machine allocate ports
   before the TURN server application starts.”

I think something similar could also make sense for STAMP?

The MUST in the text below seems quite restrictive also to me.

Mirja



> On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:11, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto: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?
> 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 Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:07 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Rakesh,
> thank you for your question. In my experience, some implementations of TWAMP-Light have taken the liberty to allow using UDP port numbers outside the Dynamic/Private range. I believe that is not the right decision. In the note of IANA's Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry we read:
>
>  Service names and port numbers are used to distinguish between different
>  services that run over transport protocols such as TCP, UDP, DCCP, and
>  SCTP.
>
>  Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>  documented in [RFC6335].
>
>  Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
>  Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>  Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
>  [RFC6335]. According to Section 8.1.2 of [RFC6335], System Ports are
>  assigned by the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures described in
>  [RFC8126]. User Ports are assigned by IANA using the "IETF Review" process,
>  the "IESG Approval" process, or the "Expert Review" process, as per
>  [RFC6335]. Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>
>  The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>  described in [RFC6335].
>
>  Assigned ports both System and User ports SHOULD NOT be used without
>  or prior to IANA registration.
>
> My interpretation is that ports in System and User ranges, even if not yet assigned, must not be used without following the assignment process. Thus, regardless of whether a number had not yet been assigned to a service, it must not be used as the destination UDP port number. Also, consider operational issues if a new service is assigned a new port number from the User Ports range. One day the number was "free" and tomorrow it may be assigned. Handling such a scenario will add complexity while benefits are, in my opinion, questionable.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:09 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Why limit the UDP port range to 49152-65535? Any free UDP port can be used, no?
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


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.