IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Wed, 18 November 2020 09:35 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 D803C3A1728; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 01:35:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 wV_H_s5PVMSt; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 01:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 256383A172C; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 01:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Cbd101cCyz67DV9; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:33:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) by fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:35:30 +0100
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:35:29 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.26]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:35:26 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
CC: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
Thread-Index: AQGKoOKFYMy1u9FpGBTWyX9fi5E/sqplu8sw
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:35:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4050C5888@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <DB661053-5088-44C6-B2CF-AD97C6001C5F@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB661053-5088-44C6-B2CF-AD97C6001C5F@apple.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_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4050C5888dggeml524mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/YMgizF6Q2t0YvfJw08O_IM5cNXU>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:35:46 -0000

Hi chairs and WG,

I read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00
and support the adoption with following comments and question.


1.       For STAMP extension https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00,  Old text: “However, in order to use only for loss measurement purpose, it
   requires the node to support the delay measurement messages and
   support timestamp for these messages (which may also require clock
   synchronization).”
      NEW text: However, in order to use only for delay measurement purpose, it  requires the node
to support the delay measurement messages and support timestamp for these messages (which may also require clock  synchronization).


2.       For both of two drafts, could you move the definitions of “Receive Counter” and “Sender counter” carried in LM Probe Response Message in to sec.4.1? It may be more easily readable.


3.       For STAMP extension https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00, in order to two-way performance measurement, the Return Path TLV is extended to carry the Reverse Path or the Binding SID. So does the extension also consider the bidirectional co-route?


Best regards,
Yali

From: Tommy Pauly [mailto:tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 3:35 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; spring-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email