IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-05

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 15376128796; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 00O3YpLDvO9C; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22d.google.com (mail-ot0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22d]) (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 C585113151A; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x37so137184493ota.2; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I3ThuwvUgMr7itw4Scto8NgiHSTbKyyBrrt+/rTojgA=; b=lwZOWK6lMvsYIGtdKSq3DCSa5lYPAuBpQTB2T/xOloiyUqL0ofyCrNLPvsjPeAr1YM apsJAfnsgd7eHSjqIlFXRwTmTkpidEG6YYlT4oLaDO0hlG6xipdFDx/rAuIwQBydVfPO M8rBwH/mae74z6kfasP8dbH9vNlDJjNr+na7DV27Tt3UmokjDuQ7sfFDhrCaSVNiyPGq yLRG+Z2YzKamMV4sTuQ+4+f1IedKQhddhJr30gyHGO4X78iuDA6sdKRp1ttHVQJ8auvH Ji7vDWeowO/vxUQhMcEazLmhX20TGMgjTpOn91n6CROmM2AbjdknFQx+i/RSf8ep8tQm MQ+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I3ThuwvUgMr7itw4Scto8NgiHSTbKyyBrrt+/rTojgA=; b=DJ7nGM3Y9s1ncgdXpDWXp0WImF9uFyH8rwqDXhsDJnJmmM33UnwnDqBVgFobVzdwq1 T09MRQ9ThZlNIvkC13wqNqriXnlDm0O8Xm0EbJJQPc74N9Fr3ewlbRaYe623mb3xkgVu vu9tRY0IfV2rN+X+5ub0gCtGTh/gry5enLZolfRzuZnMNgmXIXkfEJ3HQyUzM7a0G3Mk u/0BKvqZCpDUqwJdLBXXKRjLcSaGgWh8G9hJlH5Smbw88zms3yJQ0SyXm3KdvKj1vU/8 +XPxIMIRbyrTUfI/EpGUir04ixrwapxNJAYqaubbZ3NI8gZKd2UeCuhRFFaaCAzq0D+4 8XjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H272nMioSgHHRP6u3v7mUg9eBRtutrtqo7y28JCC5w7VtvyvSnH70t66MF1V+Ew4ffUCgJYt+Lxk2MI3g==
X-Received: by 10.157.1.247 with SMTP id e110mr14679849ote.40.1490031272239; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <148977726052.13049.17633302885192133866@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148977726052.13049.17633302885192133866@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:34:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWLezQVyq+d5OZD3fM5-4EN-qCVTAJ-_LGX+4KmKUCTWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format.all@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c03b82aafa92f054b2cf057"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/JoH-smsy3U2GqPQNryWYsFZjWH0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-05
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:34:37 -0000

Hi Jon,
thank you for kind consideration of the draft and thoughtful comment.
Indeed, TWAMP Test, and the time stamp format to be used, may be controlled
by means other than TWAMP Control, e.g., local configurable knob exposed
via data model or CLI. I'll work on text updates for the next version.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
wrote:

> Reviewer: Jon Mitchell
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
>
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
> aspects of the
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
> included in AD reviews
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments
> just like any other last call comments.
>
> Ready with Nits - this draft adds the ability to use PTP timestamps as
> an alternative to NTP timestamps for active performance measurement
> protocols OWAMP and TWAMP.  Although this draft does a good job of
> discussing interoperability for both sides of the session having or
> not having support for this operational capability, in several places
> it states that if a send/receiver support this capability it must be
> set to 1 in the flags.  However, only for TWAMP Light mode, this seems
> configurable.  This may just be my interpretation, but it probably
> should state that local implementations MAY provide a configurable
> knob to not negotiate PTPv2 timestamps in section 2.1 and 2.2 even if
> the capability is supported by the implementation.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email