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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 23:14 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 92F7D1203A1; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 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, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 OqqMSXKP_Sgh; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 DEB591201D0; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id k18so17621528ljc.11; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:14:49 -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=yIPxFkub/8BmfkJF46qXjH5bQEPkwuYC7Wf+OQ3WXk0=; b=du472r3xiyDLAbBd7/4kniJ78A1iE+L/Dl7vp7cDqDRu8x6AipdVEmBiI5RAwVylUS 1xzDMO9CP1vm3mgZWAdtD/LDBAMrjLNUZwAcpPYPgITgjdbSeDD4dnGgNivey3PL0qkA YRe/jEt3sQ4TyvpVXuFr1waWSplNqzRKESOx7rWCCIInE5tD7UXctckYh1s56sxl2zfG 0tJz9XuS+fbsSQe7zqyu9obH9TkP2EbBmUNdHlRyQcsrE1BQV5/vJkyanKO9wqUyNW60 V1NLApJwpIfpwnOpuhCDNGqZl0u52e7wfO9++l2v1jzN65Ubx+jlfCh0AaCx10dl6+GX QDhQ==
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=yIPxFkub/8BmfkJF46qXjH5bQEPkwuYC7Wf+OQ3WXk0=; b=K2zind6ymuNvqGMzAl4EpXlKBYXy+i5P/GFsuSFUyXQmCJIOCvMUaIG3EBGFAruXF2 +rOZevkKWY9FIC+qCM1d4kQLpdAcXaMStLfFF2h26FSdYbBXDhneGCev7sKbisij6Ee5 c0pw5TiRyZJ+GNjvZ4uSbh/RENujkOlkx6TtqRfxn1EEefgG5ME4+jMdbe8oU4ab7FpZ 7XX7Mx6aK4wMntrERZSAlWJHAHjNEggRFoIaCi51f8IKkGnHgaYIz4rjaNHZNwh3+kKR 8twbB9FRFa+fUsXUCEWvMsQl8md8xk/ucd5FVgrhVqH23YJxv3HgmtHAletq+i1fikKj RDOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUyp7Hh+SufZgDOLPCHfCkSMjguXYtQRDqcdVkNUb3fUGE3OR7F eqDWLzytlx/Cloth7bhf3hQuNBHyQE/PVTzmnuI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzf4wxGG3MGaF2gwTpQWNXsBm+RpQeZetOY2Jx1mZeCE+T3i1MJfyF6VyTpmO0D0jzyDkyIOpXxAk4WWQuWN38=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6c07:: with SMTP id h7mr9325512ljc.177.1562627687998; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:14:47 -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>
In-Reply-To: <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:14:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000426aed058d339c3f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/UOegxuKygN_LYtLsDCmuYE3b_bw>
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 23:15:01 -0000

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
>
>
>