Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2024 13:17 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 62944C1C64A9; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:17:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUcNcJoWPKz3; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C31EC14F5FE; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:15:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-68c2f4c3282so2801676d6.3; Wed, 07 Feb 2024 05:15:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707311747; x=1707916547; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ye+lcm6MDvNGbvu4rehdtHZrycebPbdV4rmA1fPd/Ck=; b=Ws4+YdsWTToLjjmWkAz4hRysvHbO9tiU+r4hxZqaJ3jLFW6c7lWoUdzaTTIbKQ5hUl QD+F0/ftBIF+zmOGjEwaQ+V20jqQM1/AdXy2iSx76NPtD3AsfJI3zRVHYECWyyicVWCr g5I/hvf3LSQIrhzP2hkFcGJmkXDJNgPW/285PyoMDkaORkKYCc46MqNaNfIY/zBf241W FtHjTh1YmVxjCX/NosmZEfpMILGfyzBXnxrRg39AofFxGvOfyARqq/NbQJ6+5XDDHxuG QqTNxtotpwDtpXv5zqGoMi+m4tEy9l7rm3cumFUoU7G092/MrlX7KvHO1DBbZ9vGCmdP 511Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707311747; x=1707916547; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Ye+lcm6MDvNGbvu4rehdtHZrycebPbdV4rmA1fPd/Ck=; b=HgUvppm7qHOEzKtLlcyXONlrJ/IUu8viQGPkCir+wUeSOfP1zwnXX6/y01rhUfQv7D GR+Ba6f3G+xLkdBD4pQS+LK5mqxrpLvmzxk5vmfKOw10IGXItMuTPtpxay1gA5QwgKB6 VEDodkvkD6EMTtQepekAqK0JnXoO6HO/9X4XNS0GsOHv/yYCNZyigY15a+ebQFPpMUI5 PdHKRMA0l1PxfjMq4u/+7Rofc3Lpnp7h7VCw30hVj0YDu2Li4JnN9TfJoTV3bO+t8icP xRa9fVoMEXY+UdwII6GCW4WnpPSo57KO7wGvFtveg2xy5cjHRpW+lMFMUnZyVfb9VzQS gqOg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX3+GY5GgY904uh08bnFJWK/9fOd5TVCvkZ0PzSeCvFy6V0/orCDbf6o4VnfUQjYrnfnP7O28GXeHdYsdV/YQ/TLbq13w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzJKrynfwCxV6vKxnnOuqhADeEjZ6wirlvd7ZvUnZmEBZYmnIvE HjNxzZXNcVsAfk+mGRHCTZ/Jr642G7TSegA+0SrJwV9tIFwJO0a4srg91gU67Q3yZUp2Hs64WIW ahLCdMal/6BKGy6Ik0soAfXRn1w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFFdO5dg5Gwg5mEmoDB4MH8LdwJQ6cBs6SdCCgyq2xvosnFGRuqlhFaiOLOMHZZrWXUxUGG6fXUtJ9LEin5ctQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2a4f:b0:68c:75d6:40f2 with SMTP id jf15-20020a0562142a4f00b0068c75d640f2mr5231319qvb.64.1707311746736; Wed, 07 Feb 2024 05:15:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170723405726.18854.13431250923273901282@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXBHD9O6deWO=9F7u=VgmboWYG1Sr1N4D1Ug8Bx_A74Kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXBHD9O6deWO=9F7u=VgmboWYG1Sr1N4D1Ug8Bx_A74Kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:15:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6fbBkkuph12FXGvxu6J5kw2u-8Op_NcpBD5vEZoUb-zRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f65470610ca7e00"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Bsv45MusbVYjMu17lWhLxaSpzSo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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 Feb 2024 13:17:42 -0000

Hi Greg,

Thanks for sharing the updates.
RFC 9503 (previously draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm) defines control code with
- No Reply Requested. It may intersect with the following text in this
draft in Section 2:

If the value of the Number of the Reflected Packets equals zero, then the
Session-Reflector MUST NOT send a reflected packet. Processing of the
received STAMP test packet with the Reflected Test Packet Control TLV, in
which the value of the Number of the Reflected Packets equals zero, is
according to the local nodal policy. The received STAMP test packet is
discarded if no policy to handle these cases is configured on the node.

Maybe the draft can clarify the expected behavior e.g. number of reflected
packets is non-zero but control code requests do not reply. Maybe control
code takes precedence??

Thanks,
Rakesh



On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:57 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> we've updated our proposal for the STAMP extension, Reflected Test Packet
> Control TLV, and its applicability for rate measurement as well as
> performance measurements in the multicast network. The authors always
> welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions. Looking forward to
> presenting and discussing this work at the IPPM session in Brisbane.
>
> Regards,
> Greg (on behalf of the authors)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:40 AM
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
> To: Ernesto Ruffini <eruffini@outsys.org>, Greg Mirsky <
> gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Henrik Nydell <hnydell@cisco.com>, Richard Foote <
> footer.foote@nokia.com>
>
>
> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
> has
> been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:     draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
> Revision: 03
> Title:    Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Packets in STAMP
> Date:     2024-02-06
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    11
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/
> HTML:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.html
> HTMLized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
> Diff:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document describes an optional extension to a Simple Two-way
>    Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) that enables the use of STAMP
>    test and reflected packets of variable length during a single STAMP
>    test session.  In some use cases, the use of asymmetrical test
>    packets allow for the creation of more realistic flows of test
>    packets and, thus, a closer approximation between active performance
>    measurements and conditions experienced by the monitored application.
>
>    Also, the document includes an analysis of challenges related to
>    performance monitoring in a multicast network.  It defines procedures
>    and STAMP extensions to achieve more efficient measurements with a
>    lesser impact on a network.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>