Re: [ippm] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-18

Hi, Tim and the Authors,
I fully agree with the conclusion of the review and have several notes that
I hope are not too late to consider:

   - It might be that referring to STAMP as Simple TWAMP could be confusing
   and mistaken as an extension to the TWAMP Lite profile of RFC 5357. To
   avoid the possible confusion, I propose to change the title to "Simple
   Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Segment Routing
   Networks", which is consistent with naming other STAMP RFCs, RFC 8762
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8762/> and RFC 8972
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8972/>.
   - While I agree that enabling co-routing for the reflected STAMP test
   packet is an important functionality defined in the document, it seems to
   me that it is not the only one scenario where new STAMP extensions could be
   used. I imagine that the Return Path TLV in combination with the Return
   Address sub-TLV could be used to direct the reflected STAMP test packet to
   an arbitrary host in the domain (or even anywhere in the network).
   - Furthermore, the ability to control the path of the reflected STAMP
   test packet can be used beyond making it co-routed with the path of the
   packet transmitted by the Session-Sender. I feel like the document already
   identifies these use cases for the new TLVs, just wanted to note them.

Again, apologies for my notes being so late.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:35 PM Tim Chown via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
wrote:

> Reviewer: Tim Chown
> Review result: Ready
>
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Internet Area directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects
> of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
> included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs
> should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> This document describes an extension to the simple TWAMP protocol to
> support
> its use in both MPLS and IPv6 segment routing networks in cases where it is
> desired that the STAMP packets follow the same path from sender to
> reflector
> and back again.
>
> The document serves a useful purpose, is well-written, and Ready for
> publication.
>
> Minor comment: the abstract could make it clear that the extension is to
> enable
> the same path to be taken out and back between sender and reflector.
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>