Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 19:31 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 547D212018D; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.596 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_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JFmtLHro6jGA; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (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 12C9E120168; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id k18so89930481ljc.11; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:31:28 -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=b1zdpyevfieqG8XnI3oaDu8DcMhwfAOYjKpxD60nXyw=; b=fztSiMXvMu/z3AOo84wIiODALj3VZXJdy1zFvvLpLPfo57PUecJeDMq0t054oGQmwf /ei+rYJcKQ/mxByxItpcg+AZxm/LywSTwD4t0zEu5qNf7Wv9Robz+pvHQU7nVM+redMf oAiO3IPInvl+TUvqx7wXyGp+UEI8+3/Sl6H02ztISUiZo2eVDubKSNR6FtsTJxIoH4Uj vWz05rqej5hduDVQrRfOh8tgZrCtg31Itr60Xc6r0/WJn7URrW97SbFQE807l7IaPp1Z zsQOU9HugNMFR8xYKzY1C9HrezXxJxqg2nbHSgUWFJjycxyI8SWdpsNefqW43UEPGX7W czoQ==
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=b1zdpyevfieqG8XnI3oaDu8DcMhwfAOYjKpxD60nXyw=; b=tE3jABjxgW4wSKe8S+LrA3oFbp20qRGHe96EufgqBXSrI/IffDb0Tm83bNtgz1NUMb kdyLDmDHP9eus0ssvRqoQ9r4l8wYodHzZ8/ivIkNwNfWY/Cq8zrrhKgkd4Cau3vdeCPT LLrrqZiCNRGw+T5nsxvMoKEvCnbPltT9RlppWmK3SSdTZDPhd0F8+mpzaUJeBiuwGcDn j7ZEjc63TZQii6y+MukdxKyKlEqoZKSyzqpRnWUCX+b+E/g5bEFBjI7ShFxMv4v1GV1A VRRqr9rZ0nV7pC3CueOcSBHlX93DoR2K2PEDHMw+r2UBCK2MxOZ5vIdEGWAGXxieXQ7L Ramw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXogPX4cbednT2GWIPfJiC3oN6geCGZoCN9ZWMe50FQB/HgVVUz owubp6xUkq+e9TsnV7UGrETwMzx5xhsqhYD4r7I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeo3eW7EFFcihj9aEYw0qk+KdB8Pmd08Hr67YCMHDoXLbyD2l7s9W/OiXhNDhag0zmqi/pTy3UBv/6ydkrtks=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7d0c:: with SMTP id y12mr9301785ljc.36.1565292687003; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6e-bcFNz327p_u6KEHV2qnJUytPwPmJVgXxEWbzsQr9OA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW01TgyXPAk3OGhdKqDTszkf0KzT+dDVTdaEhFu7GA7-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eUOTxjWy=r62SNvSLzOe8KGQ8CGgbW-H2uoLgDPmPsTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmUfB-d18A5OJ2rG9naFE+0HjXehf13Nt4D2z2do-wHBDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eRG0OCY_6ZRacm9+cL=YsdjUQRXXcxA8mTA=PYs5CTVw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVEVK10=3ULnRgyOzHKb3AWaHmisKoaHqocAYXM4w_ADg@mail.gmail.com> <E549477E-0320-41AD-8741-1898F37F6AA3@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E549477E-0320-41AD-8741-1898F37F6AA3@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:31:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXNWnY=GVxz2kGFT+KheQxfexTgj8_iQqA0LZzcqM_fOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Cc: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000943d6a058fa01abc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Sa2SLfHXPg4Om2dnNBuCRwEEd_4>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:31:52 -0000

Hi Rakesh,
many thanks for your comments.

   - I've updated MBZ to "MAY be zeroed on transmit and MUST be ignored on
   receipt".
   - I think that the fact RFC 7750 is not mentioned in this document
   should be interpreted as "not supported". If you believe that something
   should be said explicitly, would the following be acceptable

[RFC7750] is supported by optional extension specified in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].

Attached are, as usual, diff and the updated working version.

Much appreciate your help and commitment to making STAMP useful and
practical.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:24 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Greg for the updates. They look good, I have couple of comments:
>
>    1. I did not see the updates for the first bullet (1) below regarding
>    MBZ in the updated draft. Assuming it is pending.
>    2. It should still say something for the RFC 7750. Without any
>    guidance, it can be implemented as specified in RFC 7750.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM
> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Mirja Kuehlewind <
> ietf@kuehlewind.net>gt;, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>, "
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thank you for your kind consideration of my responses and very pointed
> questions. Please find my follow-up notes in-line below under GIM>> tag.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:15 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Please see inline <RG>..
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:14 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thank you for pointing to these two RFCs. Please consider my thoughts:
>
>    - (1) RFC 7820 is Experimental and, as I understand, the proposed
>    solution is not seen kindly by the security experts, and for a good reason.
>    As you've correctly pointed out, STAMP in unauthenticated mode may easily
>    support the technique described in RFC 7820. But I'm not sure we have to do
>    that in the base specification. What we can do is to relax language on MBZ
>    and drop "MUST be zeroed on transmission" leaving "MUST be ignored on
>    receipt". What do you think?
>
> <RG> Ok with that.
>
>
>
>
>    - (2) I appreciate your interest in RFC 7750 (as one of co-authors).
>    We've decided to support this functionality in an extension to STAMP. Class
>    of Service TLV fully supports the functionality defined in RFC 7750 and
>    offers the ability to instruct the Session-Reflector which DSCP value it
>    must use for the reflected STAMP packet. Thus CoS marking consistency is
>    verified in forward and reverse directions.
>
> <RG> In that case, draft may say RFC7750 method is not supported by STAMP?
>
> GIM>> Though it is not part of the base specification, the ability to test
> the consistency of CoS mapping on a path between STAMP Session-Sender and
> Session-Reflector is supported by using the Class of Service TLV. And since
> it has been recently adopted by IPPM WG, I don't think that such a
> statement will be helpful to an implementor of STAMP.
>
> Also, I think the draft dropped supporting the server octet [RFC6038],
> right? If so, following text needs updating?
>
>    o  (3) Packet Padding (reflected) is an optional variable length field..
>       The length of the Packet Padding (reflected) field MUST be equal
>       to the value of the Server Octets field (Figure 2).  If the value
>       is non-zero, the Session-Reflector MUST copy number of octets
>       equal to the value of Server Octets field starting with the Server
>       Octets field.
>
> GIM>> I'm sorry you've had an older working version of the draft. Attached
> is the current version and the text has been removed. Could you let me know
> if this change is acceptable?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Couple of additional comments on the draft:
>
> There are TWAMP extensions for Checksum complement in RFC 7820 and
> DSCP-ECN in RFC 7750. Good to add some text for STAMP if they can be
> supported or not supported. I can see they can be supported as following,
> and should not break anything:
>
> *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                        |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|                        Transmit Timestamp                     |*
>
> *|                                                               | *
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|         Error Estimate        |           MBZ                 |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|                      Receive Timestamp                        |*
>
> *|                                                               |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|                      Sender Sequence Number                   |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|                      Sender Timestamp                         |*
>
> *|                                                               |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|      Sender Error Estimate    |           MBZ                 |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
> *|  Sender TTL   | S-DSCP-ECN    | Checksum Complement           |*
>
> *+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:07 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thank you for your question. In my experience, some implementations of
> TWAMP-Light have taken the liberty to allow using UDP port numbers outside
> the Dynamic/Private range. I believe that is not the right decision. In the
> note of IANA's Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry we
> read:
>
>
>
>  Service names and port numbers are used to distinguish between different
>  services that run over transport protocols such as TCP, UDP, DCCP, and
>  SCTP.
>
>  Service names are assigned on a first-come, first-served process, as
>  documented in [RFC6335].
>
>  Port numbers are assigned in various ways, based on three ranges: System
>  Ports (0-1023), User Ports (1024-49151), and the Dynamic and/or Private
>  Ports (49152-65535); the difference uses of these ranges is described in
>  [RFC6335]. According to Section 8.1.2 of [RFC6335], System Ports are
>  assigned by the "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" procedures described in
>  [RFC8126]. User Ports are assigned by IANA using the "IETF Review"
> process,
>  the "IESG Approval" process, or the "Expert Review" process, as per
>  [RFC6335]. Dynamic Ports are not assigned.
>
>  The registration procedures for service names and port numbers are
>  described in [RFC6335].
>
>  Assigned ports both System and User ports SHOULD NOT be used without
>  or prior to IANA registration.
>
>
>
> My interpretation is that ports in System and User ranges, even if not yet
> assigned, must not be used without following the assignment process. Thus,
> regardless of whether a number had not yet been assigned to a service, it
> must not be used as the destination UDP port number. Also, consider
> operational issues if a new service is assigned a new port number from the
> User Ports range. One day the number was "free" and tomorrow it may be
> assigned. Handling such a scenario will add complexity while benefits are,
> in my opinion, questionable.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:09 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Why limit the UDP port range to 49152-65535? Any free UDP port can be
> used, no?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shahram,
>
> thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below
> tagged GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> HI Greg
>
>
>
> I read your draft and have the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from
> TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver differentiate
> between TWAMP and STAMP?
>
> GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
> OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination
> UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the
> Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
>
> 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
>
> GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:
>
>    - challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of
>    TWAMP-Light;
>    - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP
>    broadband access networks (TR-390);
>    - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support
>    measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of
>    CoS in the network.
>
> 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
>
> GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets the
> default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be
> supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> Shahram
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mirja,
>
> thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
>
>       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
>       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
>       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
>       [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
>       for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test traffic
>       depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
>       the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
>
>
>
> If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
> draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> See below.
>
> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is
> very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While
> reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in
> other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT
> and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to
> that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations
> section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
> > NEW TEXT:
> >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> >       be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
> >       particular before launching the test session....
>
>
> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you
> could have a separate sentence like:
>
> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for
> UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the
> test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided
> in RFC8085.”
>
> Or something similar…
>
> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref.
> However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be
> useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
> >
> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately
> cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you
> proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes.
> Sorry for the unconvience.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mirja,
> > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments.
> Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > > Hi authors, hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up!
> I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
> > >
> > > I believe this document should say something about network load and
> congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender
> scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could
> at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending
> should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more
> concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this
> document could be good.
> > > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section
> points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management
> components:
> > >    Because of the control
> > >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
> > >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
> > > adding the new text here:
> > >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> > >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> > >       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port
> is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you
> should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol.
> Just to make things crystal clear.
> > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence
> of Theory of  Operations section:
> > >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport
> toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
> > >
> > > Mirja
> > >
> > > P.S.:
> > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test
> protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test
> protocol/
> > > -> “an” missing
> > > GIM>> Thank you. Done.
> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07....txt.html>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>