[ippm] Comments on draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Thu, 26 October 2023 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490C8C15198C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 01:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6StugQOHhzoR for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F3EC151096 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 01:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SGKRG2pJyz8XrRB; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:56:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app04.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 39Q8uOPw090583; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:56:24 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:56:26 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:56:26 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd653a29baffffffff8e3-b1058
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202310261656266520696@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB4131B9E1E1B099D00A0B122EE2DFA@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: AM0PR07MB4131B9E1E1B099D00A0B122EE2DFA@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: rgandhi@cisco.com
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 39Q8uOPw090583
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 653A29CA.000/4SGKRG2pJyz8XrRB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/W4Xn6A7J414ojUfbsjOBDPl15uM>
Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 26 Oct 2023 08:56:50 -0000

Hi Rakesh,

I've read draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam-00 and found it useful.
I have a thought to simplify the STAMP TLV defined in this draft.
In both Section 4.1 and 4.2 it says "STAMP test packets may carry multiple TLVs of this type".
Figure 6 demonstrates that multiple IPv6 Option Data STAMP TLVs are carried in one STAMP test packet if multiple IPv6 EH Options exist.
Why not combine the multiple IPv6 Option Data STAMP TLVs into one IPv6 Data STAMP TLV? 
Similarly, why not combine the multiple MNA Sub-Stack Data STAMP TLVs into one MPLS Data STAMP TLV?
In this way, the STAMP Session-Reflector doesn't need to parse the received IPv6 Extension Header or MPLS MNA Sub-Stack, it just mirrors part of the received STAMP test packet and leaves all the parsing work to the STAMP Session-Sender , what do you think?

Best Regards,
Xiao Min