Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05

[David Ball <[e-mail]>]

Looks good, thanks Greg.


     David


On 23/04/2019 21:41, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi David,
> apologies for the delayed update. I've prepared the new version of the 
> draft to address your comments and comments by the draft Shepherd Tal 
> Mizrahi. Please find the diff, the updated new version attached. Also, 
> I've added a couple explaining notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag.
> Much appreciate your feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:26 AM David Ball <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have reviewed the document and am fine with it progressing.
>
>     A few nits:
>
>       * The text at the start of Sn 4.1.1 should be before the 4.1.1
>         heading (after the 4.1 heading).
>
> GIM>> Accepted and done.
>
>       * Sn 4.1.1 - the bullet about Server Octets has a spurious extra
>         part-sentence: "The Reflect Octets capability defined in
>         [RFC6038]." - this should be deleted.
>
> GIM>> The comment from Shepherd suggested re-wording the sentence. 
> Please let me know if the following change is acceptable:
> OLD TEXT:
> The Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038].
> NEW TEXT:
> This field is used for the Reflect Octets capability defined in 
> [RFC6038].
>
>      *
>
>
>       * Fig 4 shows a min length of 112 (if I counted right); but text
>         at the start of 4.1.1 says the min length in authenticated
>         mode is 48.
>
> GIM>> Great catch, thank you! It must be 112 - corrected the text.
>
>       * The wording/grammar in the paragraph after bullets in Sn 4.4
>         is a little awkward - suggested edits below:
>
>        "In the former case,the  Session-Sender MAY not be aware that its Session-
>         Reflector does not support STAMP.  For example,a  TWAMP Light Session-
>         Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined in
>         [I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05#ref-I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test>].  Thus, the  STAMP Session-Sender MUST be
>         able to send test packets to destination UDP port numbers  taken  from the
>         Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535. The  test management
>         system should finda  port number that both devices can use.If any
>         ofthe  TLV-based STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-
>         Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field.  The Session-Sender
>         SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps(NTP) but  it MAY
>         use PTPv2 timestamp format."
>
> GIM>> Many thanks. Accepted.
>
>         David
>
>
>     -- 
>     David Ball
>     <[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ippm mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
-- 
David Ball
<[e-mail]>