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

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

 Thanks Greg for considering my review comments. Good to see the message
format aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv and using MBZ 30. This
should fix the interoperability issue between the two. This also gives few
(3) bytes for any future extensions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may fix the spelling of my name and another typo below:

OLD:

and Rakesh Gandi or their



NEW:

and Rakesh Gandhi for their

----------------------------------------------------------------------



I did not see following comment addressed. Is that intentional?

------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 AM Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]> wrote:



    Thanks Greg for the reply.



    In this case, should the draft just state that the Session-Sender can
select destination UDP port number following the guidelines specified in
[RFC6335], instead of specifying following?



Section 4.4

    Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test

       packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or

       Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a

       port number that both devices can use.

----------------------------------------------


Thanks,
Rakesh


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
> thank you for your helpful comments. We've updated the format of the base
> STAMP test packet. Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes,
> comments and questions,
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>> Regarding the size of the padding, yes, it's good to use the same size
>> payload for query and response.
>> However, the STAMP payload with TLV extension
>> (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01) has slightly different padding size
>> (27 ( or > 29) vs. 30). Is there a way to make them compatible? Does it
>> mean that for STAMP with TLV, Server Octets is set to 1, but it says MBZ 0
>> for all 30 bytes. If the responder supports Server Octets and see the size
>> > 27, it may find the Server Octet size of 0 confusing?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shahram,
>>> thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below
>>> tagged GIM>>.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI Greg
>>>>
>>>> I read your draft and have the following questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from
>>>> TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver differentiate
>>>> between TWAMP and STAMP?
>>>>
>>> GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
>>> OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination
>>> UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the
>>> Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
>>>
>>>> 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
>>>>
>>> GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:
>>>
>>>    - challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of
>>>    TWAMP-Light;
>>>    - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP
>>>    broadband access networks (TR-390);
>>>    - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support
>>>    measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of
>>>    CoS in the network.
>>>
>>> 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
>>>>
>>> GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets
>>> the default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be
>>> supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thx
>>>> Shahram
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mirja,
>>>> thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
>>>>       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.
>>>>       [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
>>>>       for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test traffic
>>>>       depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
>>>>       the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
>>>>
>>>> If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
>>>> draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi Mirja,
>>>>> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document
>>>>> is very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While
>>>>> reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in
>>>>> other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT
>>>>> and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to
>>>>> that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations
>>>>> section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
>>>>> > NEW TEXT:
>>>>> >       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 using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
>>>>> >       particular before launching the test session...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or
>>>>> you could have a separate sentence like:
>>>>>
>>>>> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for
>>>>> UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the
>>>>> test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided
>>>>> in RFC8085.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Or something similar…
>>>>>
>>>>> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref.
>>>>> However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mirja
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>> > Greg
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Greg,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would
>>>>> be useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
>>>>> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
>>>>> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
>>>>> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
>>>>> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately
>>>>> cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you
>>>>> proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes.
>>>>> Sorry for the unconvience.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Mirja
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> [e-mail]> 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.
>>>>> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
>>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07...txt.html>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>
>>