IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Wed, 18 November 2020 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 57EDD3A102D; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DK6zTPWsWwqe; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 046A43A12D5; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CbS4z3MDKz67Dm6; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:51:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.222) by fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:53:21 +0100
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:53:20 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.220]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:53:14 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
CC: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
Thread-Index: AQGKoOKFYMy1u9FpGBTWyX9fi5E/sqpkOSNAgACozICAAIaIgA==
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 02:53:14 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02CBF64F@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <DB661053-5088-44C6-B2CF-AD97C6001C5F@apple.com>, <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02CBE96F@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR11MB311581C9738D8B91272C7BEBBFE10@DM6PR11MB3115.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB311581C9738D8B91272C7BEBBFE10@DM6PR11MB3115.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02CBF64Fdggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/7pUqTai_gKk6pf2QUGi46LcxLXM>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
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, 18 Nov 2020 02:53:26 -0000

Thanks, this addresses my concerns.

One more comments, more text should be added to describe the counters. I think the counter is associated with the measured flow instead of the Testing flow. Correct?


Transmit Counter (64-bit): The number of packets or octets sent by
   the sender node in the query message and by the reflector node in the
   response message.  The counter is always written at the well-known
   location in the probe query and response messages.

Regarding the extensions, I think they are valuable.

Thanks,
Cheng

From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>; Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; spring-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Thank you Cheng for your review comments.
Please see inline replies with <RG>...

From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org>>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 3:44 AM
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>, IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>) <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>, spring-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:spring-chairs@ietf.org> <spring-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:spring-chairs@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
Hi IPPM,

I support the adoption with some questions and comments.

draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00

  1.  Is draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00 an Informational draft?
<RG> This was based on review comment. We are Ok to change it to PS if WG is ok.


  1.  Do not require any IANA allocation? Related to 1.
<RG> No.


  1.  The name is about TWAMP Light, but in draft short name , it is twamp.
<RG> TWAMP Light method.


  1.  Can we use this method for other network except SR? I think yes.
<RG> Yes.

draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00

  1.  Can we use this method for other network except SR? I think yes.
<RG> Yes.

Thanks,
Rakesh



Thanks,
Cheng




From: Tommy Pauly [mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 3:35 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>) <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>; spring-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Hello IPPM,

For the past few meetings, we've had updates on the work in the SPRING WG that was using STAMP and TWAMP. Since those documents ended up making extensions to the base protocols, the chairs of SPRING and IPPM decided that it would be best to split the documents and track the IPPM extension work in the IPPM WG.

As such, we are starting a Working Group call for adoption for draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm.

The documents are here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00

The related SPRING documents are here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Please provide your feedback on these documents, and state whether or not you believe the IPPM WG should adopt this work by replying to this email. Please provide your feedback by the start of the IETF 109 meeting week, on Monday, November 16.

Best,
Tommy & Ian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email