[ippm] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Barry's DISCUSS.

Also a few points are not clear:

   o  Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state
      and will reflect the received sequence number without
      modification.
This is not the only thing that the reflector reflects, right?

      The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use,
      or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp
      format in use.  This optional field is to enhance operations, but
      local configuration or defaults could be used in its place.
What do you mean by "use"and how does that differ from "set"?
Also the fact that it is described as optional here but as "MUST/SHOULD be set
to NTP" in interop with TWAMP light is confusing.