Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

Hi Authors,
There were couple of items discussed on the mailing list and have added
them below for convenience. Like to see them addressed in the adopted draft.

Thanks,

Rakesh

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

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
of 30 MBZ vs 27 ( or > 29)in draft-ietf-ippm-stamp. 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?

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

The direct measurement TLV proposed in the draft may not be hardware
friendly for actual data traffic loss measurement due to the need to search
the presence of the TLV and the counter offset not always fixed due to the
variable length payload. Also, it overloads the delay measurement probes
just for measuring packet loss which complicates the implementation.

GIM>> The Direct Loss TLV is intended to immediately follow the STAMP test
packet and thus its location is known. We'll work on the text to guide
implementations to be more HW friendly and support efficient testing.

<RG> Revised format looks like following:

       0                   1                   2                   3

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |                        Sequence Number                        |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |                          Timestamp                            |

      |                                                               |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |         Error Estimate        |                               |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |

      |                                                               |

      |                                                               |

      |                         MBZ (30 octets)                       |

      |                                                               |

      |                                                               |

      |                                                               |

      |                                                               |

*      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*

*      |    Direct Measurement Type    |           Length              |*

*      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*

*      |             Session-Sender Tx counter  (S_TxC)                |*

*      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*

*      |             Session-Reflector Rx counter  (R_RxC)             |*

*      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*

*      |             Session-Reflector Tx counter  (R_TxC)             |*

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |             Type              |           Length              |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      ~                            Value                              ~

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:53 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello IPPM,
>
> This message begins an adoption call for
> draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
> Protocol Optional Extensions”. The document has been discussed on the list
> recently, with good input and reviews from the group. We’d like to get the
> working group’s input on if this document should be adopted and worked on
> by the group.
>
> The current status and text of the document can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv/
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-05
>
> Please respond to this email by *Tuesday, July 23* to indicate whether or
> not you think IPPM should adopt and work on the extensions and extension
> mechanism described in this draft.
>
> Best,
> Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>