Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG Chairs, Authors, and IPPM WG community,
I've reviewed these drafts and have some comments to share. Below, please
find my thoughts on whether these drafts can be adopted. More specific
comments on each pair of drafts (TWAMP-related and STAMP-related draft and
its accompanying draft targetted to the SPRING WG) are in the attached
documents.

Usually, the bar for the adoption of a document can be evaluated by answers
to these three questions:

·  Is the document(s) reasonably well-written

I've got surprised that the drafts don't use the terminology from RFCs
4656/5357 and RFC 8762, and introduce their own terminology for
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector. Also, many terms, e.g., Links,
"congruent paths", are used in the documents without proper definitions.
Other than that both drafts are readable and reasonably well-written.

·  Does the document solve a real problem?

No, it appears that  both TWAMP and STAMP drafts  define a new performance
measurement protocol for the purpose of combining OWAMP/TWAMP and STAMP
functionality in the respective drafts, and adding the ability to collect
counters of "in-profile" packets. I couldn't find sufficient technical
arguments for using a PM protocol instead of, for example, extending the
existing OAM mechanisms like ICMP multi-part message extension per RFC 4884.

·  Is the proposed solution technically viable?

There are too many unaddressed aspects, particularly the risk introduced by
the protocols on network security, to comprehensively evaluate the proposed
solutions.



Regards,

Greg



On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:35 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello IPPM,
>
> For the past few meetings, we’ve had updates on the work in the SPRING WG
> that was using STAMP and TWAMP. Since those documents ended up making
> extensions to the base protocols, the chairs of SPRING and IPPM decided
> that it would be best to split the documents and track the IPPM extension
> work in the IPPM WG.
>
> As such, we are starting a Working Group call for adoption
> for draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm.
>
> The documents are here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00
>
> The related SPRING documents are here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
>
> Please provide your feedback on these documents, and state whether or not
> you believe the IPPM WG should adopt this work by replying to this email.
> Please provide your feedback by the start of the IETF 109 meeting week, on *Monday,
> November 16*.
>
> Best,
> Tommy & Ian
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>