IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762E41200A3; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3QSDrdPqZ6_z; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E1C12006E; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id m23so33688675lje.12; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PnvsaobbnsYjR8QYWAHPhCko53qM59sOe+E9K00RrcU=; b=SUBRGOg+5E/JoQAVskgsXrBd8gvkAQtYNcve1sdHeFpi7KfuKoEufSO5gZhNnGPY8J IRBWMOE/A7yXuHW1obnoY1xTuQ5FNtTC9fdF1CRWDAyWFRmldsf7Xg7fAwHKcQMHmsQU WB0naBHbp5FP/gybjktCNrl02e2ZiDSKd1ppGHAH72tR0bZxl54d17d2inre9hClbtfy Fbh1ziG9KHhijTTtNUfSSSeYhOj9RAf1QRY00+fLPGKdq54giE43rWaWa3WoWO8PWCdJ xVDxsGABLq8DKW6c02gUbr5e6XrvYQqd/C4cQZpCS5sByePhg/UUMHTR78TNnV3T+pSr WiMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PnvsaobbnsYjR8QYWAHPhCko53qM59sOe+E9K00RrcU=; b=sq7GIH4gVcwLyY/QQS9Eu3+Zn8RmtVPui5IbRRo9LYOCVe7FcQh7FTSVrutaGqHv5b Q87TUAELqdv+3CRN65VA08NltErKriXqAmHcp/KufbiVy5ryPHwS9OTKwlbLfu8aZI9o ddgA3A9eyq/y/epP+Ta3pktwY9pH8yOch+m4sLMC1BsavBzDtQES6UlqFUMy+/Ra0dXF a3Di7cfZHvDXB8SvWr092CU26FKpdR0AbT2mpNg9JQgBbbDtH5FOe7+ut6GuFXi2TdDD n9pbexKQCbjmAtoatFKDKOdsIuBCeqA+H6Dyp6htXM0ptPZJYNt8B4IZ+K35I2EXgHZg 5eSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUdDanHschsK9xS8lvrC/UMV0ZrqFnF5wRNCMfeQ3Xxffn2ItYv tP19BEvWGxn+q6y2wP7CgYj8q9Lkq7cf0W3BEw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwEDNRCe62DBzeh3p9KZm2puSHz1QW5XeL8T87rAzxzAc5jfh9sfd5cV9mwHUX6IftYU0xldTIYAxdbAZicJIE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b83:: with SMTP id z3mr3624942lji.84.1563648521708; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C3852A60-4580-47E9-A998-C0026D36523B@apple.com> <CAMZsk6eWTiGcAC0ONQ6HnqoZa-JFJHM+i4Q1ePG3XcJxgtrFMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmUxDjkQj5CuOFSQZ-v=7KQ4qu_6pfqLGHVY_VZZ=v1E5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUxDjkQj5CuOFSQZ-v=7KQ4qu_6pfqLGHVY_VZZ=v1E5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:48:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6fAssK4=zx1DJZq2F4odj6=mivXtk4-aRawKOzmMHq=JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0a958058e214a11"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/JWD7V40OgpcJ0QS_IdSSHZYHOkQ>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:48:46 -0000

Hi Greg,


Following comment was shared on the list:

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

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 (when using the TLVs), it may find the Server
Octet size of 0 confusing?

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


Thanks,

Rakesh



On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:24 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
> thank you for your insightful comments that have helped us to improve the
> specification. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the summary of the questions
> we've discussed. Could you kindly re-send them?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:48 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email