Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05

Hi David,
thank you for the review and suggestions. Will update the document
accordingly and publish the new version after the WG LC closes.

Kind regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:26 AM David Ball <daviball@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed the document and am fine with it progressing.
>
> A few nits:
>
>    - The text at the start of Sn 4.1.1 should be before the 4.1.1 heading
>    (after the 4.1 heading).
>    - Sn 4.1.1 - the bullet about Server Octets has a spurious extra
>    part-sentence: "The Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038]." - this
>    should be deleted.
>    - Fig 4 shows a min length of 112 (if I counted right); but text at
>    the start of 4.1.1 says the min length in authenticated mode is 48.
>    - The wording/grammar in the paragraph after bullets in Sn 4.4 is a
>    little awkward - suggested edits below:
>
>   "In the former case, the Session-Sender MAY not be aware that its Session-
>    Reflector does not support STAMP.  For example, a TWAMP Light Session-
>    Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05#ref-I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test>].  Thus, the STAMP Session-Sender MUST be
>    able to send test packets to destination UDP port numbers taken from the
>    Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.  The test management
>    system should find a port number that both devices can use.  If any
>    of the TLV-based STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-
>    Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field.  The Session-Sender
>    SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps (NTP) but it MAY
>    use PTPv2 timestamp format."
>
>
>
>     David
>
>
> --
> David Ball<daviball@cisco.com> <daviball@cisco.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>