Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rakesh,
thank you for your interest in the update to STAMP extensions. Can you
elaborate on where you see the conflict between STAMP and your proposal? Is
the change you've proposed applicable to STAMP test packet? As far as I
understand, STAMP cannot support your proposal and interwork with a system
that is complaint with draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm. As for STAP
interworking with TWAMP in Unauthenticated mode, SSID doesn't change
anything, as TWAMP Session-Sender will zero the field and Session-Reflector
will ignore it on receipt. So I don't see conflict here at all. I greatly
appreciate your clarification.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> I noticed that this STAMP TLV draft update is proposing to modify the
> STAMP packet format to contain SSID.
>
>
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       |         Error Estimate        |             SSID              |
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
> The SRPM draft posted in December had already proposed to use the same
> field for control-code.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-05
>
>     .                                                               .
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>     |         Error Estimate        | Reserved      |  Control Code |
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>     .
>
>
>
> Looks like there is a conflict in packet format update proposed that need
> to sort out.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ippm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 11:07 AM
> *To: *IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> the new version includes updates to the Followup Telemetry TLV and
> introduces the new HMAC TLV.
>
> We always welcome and greatly appreciate your comments, questions, and
> suggestions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 8:04 AM
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
> To: Henrik Nydell <[e-mail] <hnydell@accedian..com>>, Min
> Xiao <[e-mail]>, Adi Masputra <[e-mail]>, Ernesto
> Ruffini <[e-mail]>, Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>,
> Richard Foote <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
> Revision:       03
> Title:          Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional
> Extensions
> Document date:  2020-02-21
> Group:          ippm
> Pages:          25
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes optional extensions to Simple Two-way Active
>    Measurement Protocol (STAMP) which enable measurement performance
>    metrics in addition to ones supported by the STAMP base
>    specification.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>