[ippm] 答复: WGLC for STAMP Extensions

[wangyali <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your reply. This is also I am thinking. If I understand correctly, it means that any one of TLVs defined in this draft may be used as sub- or sub-sub-TLV in others.

Best regards,
Yali

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2020年6月12日 23:26
收件人: wangyali <[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

Hi Yali,
I wanted to point that TLVs may be enclosed, i.e., used as sub-, sub-sub-TLV. If it came across in a confusing manner, I'm all open for better wording.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:26 PM wangyali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Glad to receive your reply. Just a minor question. Please see inline <Yali>.

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 5:42 AM
To: wangyali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

Hi Yali,
my apologies for the delayed response. Please find my answers below tagged GIM>>. Attached, please find the updated working version and the diff. I hope that the proposed updates address your concerns.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 1:40 AM wangyali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi authors and IPPM,

I support its publication. But after reading, I have two questions and comments as follows:


1.       In the draft, I confused a sentence that said ‘The Session-Sender MUST NOT stop the session if it receives a zeroed  SSID field.’ If a STAMP Session-Reflector that does not support this specification and return the zeroed SSID field in the reflected STAMP test packet, the STAMP Session-Sender MUST stop the session. I assume there’s a edit error.
GIM>> Great catch, thank you!





2.       Does the TLV field shown in figure 1 indicate that the STAMP Session-Sender test packet with TLV in unauthenticated mode can contains one or more TLVs defined in this draft? I suggest to give an illustration about the TLV field in the test packet and revise TLV field in figure 1 that is not very clear.
GIM>> You are absolutely correct, multiple TLVs can be used in the same test packet either sequentially or enclosed. I've added a new text in the first paragraph of Section 4:
OLD TEXT:
   Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme provides flexible extension
   mechanism for optional informational elements.  TLV is an optional
   field in the STAMP test packet.
NEW TEXT:
   Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme provides a flexible extension
   mechanism for optional informational elements.  TLV is an optional
   field in the STAMP test packet.  Multiple TLVs MAY be placed in the
   STAMP test packet.  A TLV MAY be enclosed in a TLV.

<Yali> what do you mean ‘A TLV MAY be enclosed in a TLV’?

Also, I've updated captions for Figure 1 and Figure 2 to indicate that they present an example of an extended STAMP test packet.

Best regards,
Yali



From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Ian Swett
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 5:26 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

Hi IPPM,

At our virtual interim meeting, we decided draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv was ready for last call. This email starts a two-week WGLC for this draft.

The latest version can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-04

This last call will end on Monday, June 8th. Please reply to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> with your reviews and comments.

Thanks,
Ian & Tommy