IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ippm] 答复: WGLC for STAMP Extensions

"Songyuezhong (songyuezhong, IP technology Research Dept)" <songyuezhong@huawei.com> Sat, 30 May 2020 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <songyuezhong@huawei.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 9DD583A0971 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 04:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WzvRVmYiiIiN for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 04:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 919CB3A095F for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 04:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EDC80FE42D5B93992102 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 12:56:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.82) by lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 30 May 2020 12:56:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.41) by lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 30 May 2020 12:56:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.135]) by dggemm424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sat, 30 May 2020 19:56:06 +0800
From: "Songyuezhong (songyuezhong, IP technology Research Dept)" <songyuezhong@huawei.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions
Thread-Index: AQHWMH+2N2VBgSiYq0+BnuJVd8y5Z6jAcMbg
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 11:56:06 +0000
Message-ID: <48ED4E513E517844B7A0FAA7C5B661164919EEB6@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAKcm_gMVc88xpkOMmV7L-ybVCBzw+LhNS6Jw3=iB2gutR0ZhxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gMVc88xpkOMmV7L-ybVCBzw+LhNS6Jw3=iB2gutR0ZhxA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.186]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_48ED4E513E517844B7A0FAA7C5B661164919EEB6dggemm513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/OWZajFTj7xAQ0hZ_s5KRFzx8BLk>
Subject: [ippm] 答复: WGLC for STAMP Extensions
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, 30 May 2020 11:56:22 -0000

Hi Ian，

I have read the latest version of this draft，and have some small suggestions, hope it is helpful for you.

For part 4,there list 8 new TLVs, but it seems not detailed enough for each TLV about the application scenario and some terms in it, we need guess to understand the whole plan.

Especially for the people who have no background knowledge of each application scenario, maybe it is more hard for them to understand.

So I suggest for each TLV, there should have some pictures and background content to help people understand the TLV’s meaning and using method，it will be better.


By the way, I have some doubt about the Location TLV, which is the last-hop router, the reflector or the router before it? And how to indicate if the STAMP packets are send to the wrong Session-Reflector from this TLV?


And another question is how to use Class of Service TLV to find the misconfigure problem, is it enough?



Thanks,
Yuezhong


发件人: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ian Swett
发送时间: 2020年5月23日 5:26
收件人: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
主题: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

Hi IPPM,

At our virtual interim meeting, we decided draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv was ready for last call. This email starts a two-week WGLC for this draft.

The latest version can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-04

This last call will end on Monday, June 8th. Please reply to ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> with your reviews and comments.

Thanks,
Ian & Tommy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email