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

Greg Mirsky <> Mon, 08 July 2019 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D371201D6; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 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_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LRxdOoDElbd; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA0E12021B; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i21so16172876ljj.3; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 07:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JzAeTtdtwgdZZEKAYUjoK0JrN4fxU8VHNX5yuPanRgQ=; b=UzWoFh5otznDADa0ytGYREWbSj3b3mn4fNMGMYIAnn2YAq8W3/RNYLuQrvumILiqbU ErNKnO6b30S5VtRJPLsn2dKhQzAGOXrXm2MiHMHPWJoMSZJh+YufKRB+zXMYejcTQ7Eq pxVB0J3cf9c3XayKNQNBI/tAvnH7/HMVukUl8965F5fSjRbT7V80VRmy+B9g8QMPYXZN sxSmklXwHEgEoLflMHEBM9rEbbduiCrv+w/Unbui6oYkUJNku7NKjiH4iTSfczbndPwt kSIpt8u0EWJKkh3punUkPEB43yXz7qXxgCklqrc1dH3I+l+jmGrL56AY+hkdh8L/jyYG AhdA==
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=JzAeTtdtwgdZZEKAYUjoK0JrN4fxU8VHNX5yuPanRgQ=; b=LUI7/ipKcTl5zDxa8uNeCe5uWkyPhiaU+eAaxI4bAKzrEmOb4U4xxStgb1lyH5TmtQ 2VfOZyjR0NdAzvC8BFn1MtGJ1JIblfF4UGPVyAVshYfs6fBmYIKhTS4ORAz8U0+SOSPG lAx+KH5MWdb9huMZLAb3DIWTDkms/scFtVs411KopZ8jPql05t1Z1R/bXSCHcxGVkEnv gIsj9Z9kIglehV6IwdMr76FeCnrfMDZ7EK2qQrfqveRgOvvgQXocjz0yCT5Gi1X0UhIM zzRZ0EKqXEi7CG8Guizz8xkNoHvUEFDKXUTtkynRfMgrbXDrxofxu4Raov6Rd2MzsD5p 4sug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwO5lI8L/VjR1lNy2ZpSXmIgfKZ+hoc3Ut11XZUfIAh7hB+ecc GvVk8N1/ag52dn6+LoW3n0awvIDri4qqNs35wrQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2mYK5MCroDZy4/9FWkn2yBDI2IDTkdq+qBWXAKdYJpLxQ9ghQ1y4w1Lpx2U7shRob8hFMIix5ighGHZg6GvU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7d0c:: with SMTP id y12mr10507676ljc.36.1562596333375; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 07:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
Cc:, IPPM Chairs <>, IETF IPPM WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000610e21058d2c4fa4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 14:32:46 -0000

Now with IPPM WG list included.
The proposed updates to the STAMP base specification with the diff attached.


On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:46 AM Greg Mirsky <> 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 <>
> 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.