IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Comments for draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <wangyali11@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 3C86B3A0E0D; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 IOiHqZhePxrC; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:27:51 -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 F2F8F3A0DFF; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1F26F90D5C1709A5BE27; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 02:27:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.63) by lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 02:27:47 +0100
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 02:27:47 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.7]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:26:55 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag@ietf.org" <draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag@ietf.org>
CC: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Comments for draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag
Thread-Index: AQHWotaP9PVpSnEc3Eqss3wi5vfWIqmYas6Q
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 01:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40500528E@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40500377D@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297EF0202@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297EF0202@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.136]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40500528Edggeml524mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/UajQS8LWh0X3AF-404wuHC6Tjh0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments for draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 01:28:00 -0000

Hi Mach,

Thanks for your feedback and kind consideration.

Referring to [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv], SSID and multiple TLVs are extended following the base format.
And I suggest updating normative reference [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] to the latest version draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.

Best regards,
Yali

From: Mach Chen
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 5:36 PM
To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag@ietf.org
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [ippm] Comments for draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag

Hi Yali,

Thanks for your comments!

The current design extends the STAMP base format to implement PM on LAG, in my understanding, the STAMP-TLV draft extends the base STAMP by adding TLV following the base format. Therefore, the current design can be easily extended to support STAMP-TLV format. I am personally OK to add a format based on the STAMP-TLV format.

BTW, thanks for the nit, we will fix it in the next reversion.

Best regards,
Mach

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of wangyali
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:10 PM
To: draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag@ietf.org>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [ippm] Comments for draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag

Hi authors,

This is a valuable draft discussing about PM on LAG through OWAMP/TWAMP/STAMP extension.

The basic STAMP defined in RFC8762 has been extended to implement PM on member link of a LAG in your draft.  Do you consider the extended STAMP proposed in [draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] to be used for PM on LAG?


Nits:

OLD: When receives a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST

   use the member link from which the Test packet is received to

   correlate to a micro STAMP session and use the Sender/Reflector

   member link identifiers to validate whether the Test packet is is

   correctly transmitted over the expected member link.



NEW: When receives a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST

   use the member link from which the Test packet is received to

   correlate to a micro STAMP session and use the Sender/Reflector

   member link identifiers to validate whether the Test packet is

   correctly transmitted over the expected member link.

Best regards,
Yali

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email