Re: [ippm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am not sure I can judge the full risk associated here, so I would like to
see what the WG members think about it.

The another point was, if test packets does not carry link validation
information then there must be other ways to perform the validation, this
specification lacks the description on those. what are those way to perform
the link validation?

//Zahed

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:12 AM [e-mail] <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Zaheduzzaman,
>
> Thank you for your discussion.
>
> Yes, using the method introduced in this doc to do member link validation
> is important to ensure the received test packet is from the correct member
> link. Since STAMP TLVs are optinal, and one session for each member link in
> a LAG can be established without the Micro-session ID TLV if network
> operator believes the risk to receive test packet from wrong member link is
> acceptable, we use RECOMMENDED not MUST.  I, from the operator's
> perspective, prefer MUST and can modify the doc accordingly if IESG experts
> also think so.
>
> ------------------------------
> Best Regards,
> Zhenqiang Li
> China Mobile
> [e-mail]
>
>
> *From:* Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 2023-11-29 04:04
> *To:* The IESG <[e-mail]>
> *CC:* draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag <[e-mail]>;
> ippm-chairs <[e-mail]>; ippm <[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar
> <[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: (with DISCUSS)
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this specification.
>
> I would like to discuss one point - it appears that micro link validation
> is
> very important in this context, however, the STAMP test packet to carry the
> validation link information is RECOMMENDED not MUST and this specification
> does
> not mention what are the other ways to share those information. What does
> happen when the recommendation is not fulfilled? the active measurement
> session
> fails? I would expect this specification to be more clear on those aspects.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>