< draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07.txt >
	Network Working Group G. Mirsky		Network Working Group G. Mirsky
	Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.		Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
	Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun		Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun
	Expires: October 25, 2019 ZTE Corporation		Expires: February 11, 2020 ZTE Corporation
	H. Nydell		H. Nydell
	Accedian Networks		Accedian Networks
	R. Foote		R. Foote
	Nokia		Nokia
	April 23, 2019		August 10, 2019
	Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol		Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
	draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06		draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol		This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
	which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip		which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip
	performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.		performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . . 4		4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 4		4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 5
	4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 6		4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 6
	4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . 7		4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . 7
	4.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated		4.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated
	Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 9		4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 9
	4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . 11		4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . 10
	4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Development and deployment of Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol		Development and deployment of Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
	(TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined		(TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined
	features such as Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size for TWAMP		features such as Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size for TWAMP
	provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations		provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations
	exist, have been deployed and provide important operational		exist, have been deployed and provide important operational
	performance measurements. At the same time, there has been		performance measurements. At the same time, there has been
	noticeable interest in using a simpler mechanism for active		noticeable interest in using a simpler mechanism for active
	performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and		performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and
	inherit separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or		inherit separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or
	orchestration) and test functions. One of such is Performance		orchestration) and test functions. One of such is Performance
	Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from		Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from
	Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] used as the reference TWAMP Light that,		Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] used as the reference TWAMP Light that,
	according to [RFC8545], includes sub-set of TWAMP-Test functions in		according to [RFC8545], includes sub-set of TWAMP-Test functions in
	combination with other applications that provide, for example,		combination with other applications that provide, for example,
	control and security. This document defines active performance		control and security. This document defines an active performance
	measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol		measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
	(STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip		(STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip
	performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.		performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
			Some TWAMP extensions, e.g., [RFC7750] are supported by the
			extensions to STAMP base specification in
			[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].
	2. Conventions used in this document		2. Conventions used in this document
	2.1. Terminology		2.1. Terminology
	AES Advanced Encryption Standard		AES Advanced Encryption Standard
	CBC Cipher Block Chaining		CBC Cipher Block Chaining
	ECB Electronic Cookbook		ECB Electronic Cookbook
	skipping to change at page 3, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 33 ¶
	NTP - Network Time Protocol		NTP - Network Time Protocol
	PTP - Precision Time Protocol		PTP - Precision Time Protocol
	HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code		HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code
	OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol		OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
	TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol		TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
			MBZ May be Zero
	2.2. Requirements Language		2.2. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement		3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement
	Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol		Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
	(STAMP) Session-Sender and Session-Reflector with a measurement		(STAMP) Session-Sender, and Session-Reflector with a measurement
	session. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-		session. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-
	Sender, Session-Reflector and management of the STAMP sessions can be		Sender, Session-Reflector and management of the STAMP sessions can be
	achieved through various means. Command Line Interface, OSS/BSS		achieved through various means. Command Line Interface, OSS/BSS
	(operations support system/business support system as a combination		(operations support system/business support system as a combination
	of two systems used to support a range of telecommunication services)		of two systems used to support a range of telecommunication services)
	using SNMP or controllers in Software-Defined Networking using		using SNMP or controllers in Software-Defined Networking using
	Netconf/YANG are but a few examples.		Netconf/YANG are but a few examples.
	o----------------------------------------------------------o		o----------------------------------------------------------o
	| Configuration and |		| Configuration and |
	skipping to change at page 4, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 22 ¶
	|| ||		|| ||
	|| ||		|| ||
	+----------------------+ +-------------------------+		+----------------------+ +-------------------------+
	| STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector |		| STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector |
	+----------------------+ +-------------------------+		+----------------------+ +-------------------------+
	Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model		Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model
	4. Theory of Operation		4. Theory of Operation
	STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets toward STAMP Session-		STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport toward
	Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-Sender's packet		STAMP Session-Reflector. A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port
	and acts according to the configuration and optional control		862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver Port) as the default destination UDP port
	information communicated in the Session-Sender's test packet. STAMP		number. A STAMP implementation of Session-Sender MUST be able to use
	defines two different test packet formats, one for packets		UDP port numbers from User, a.k.a. Registered, Ports and Dynamic,
	transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets		a.k.a. Private or Ephemeral, Ports ranges defined in [RFC6335].
	transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Reflector. STAMP supports two		Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the possible impact
	modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test		on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed by all users of
	packets, defined in Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.2.1, ensure		the network.
	interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light as described in
	Section 4.4 packet formats.		STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-Sender's packet and acts
			according to the configuration and optional control information
			communicated in the Session-Sender's test packet. An implementation
			of STAMP Session-Reflector by default MUST use receive STAMP test
			packets on UDP port 862. An implementation of Session-Reflector that
			supports this specification MUST be able to define the port number to
			receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges
			that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two different test
			packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the STAMP-Session-
			Sender and one for packets transmitted by the STAMP-Session-
			Reflector.
			STAMP supports two modes: unauthenticated and authenticated.
			Unauthenticated STAMP test packets, defined in Section 4.1.1 and
			Section 4.2.1, ensure interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light as
			described in Section 4.4 packet formats.
	By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet		By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet
	transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet		transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet
	received by the Session-Reflector.		received by the Session-Reflector.
	4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format		4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format
	Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, STAMP Session-Sender		Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, STAMP Session-Sender
	packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see		packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see
	Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4.		Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 31 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Sequence Number |		| Sequence Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Timestamp |		| Timestamp |
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Error Estimate | |		| Error Estimate | |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	| MBZ (27 octets) |		| MBZ (30 octets) |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		| |
	| | Server Octets | |		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
	| Remaining Packet Padding (to be reflected) |
	~ (length in octets specified in Server Octets) ~
	+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated		Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated
	mode		mode
	where fields are defined as the following:		where fields are defined as the following:
	o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session		o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session
	its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted		its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted
	packet.		packet.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 29 ¶
	* 0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp;		* 0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp;
	* 1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp.		* 1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp.
	The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use,		The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use,
	or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp		or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp
	format in use. This optional field is to enhance operations, but		format in use. This optional field is to enhance operations, but
	local configuration or defaults could be used in its place.		local configuration or defaults could be used in its place.
	o Must-be-Zero (MBZ) field in the session-sender unauthenticated		o May-be-Zero (MBZ) field in the session-sender unauthenticated
	packet is 27 octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the		packet is 30 octets long. It MAY be all zeroed on the
	transmission and ignored on receipt.		transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	o Server Octets field is optional two octets long field. This field
	is used for the Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038].
	If being used, the Server Octets field MUST follow the 27 octets
	long MBZ field. The value in the Server Octets field equals the
	number of octets the Session-Reflector is expected to copy back to
	the Session-Sender starting with the Server Octets field. Thus
	the minimum non-zero value for the Server Octets field is two.
	Therefore, the value of one is invalid. If none of Payload to be
	copied, the value of the Server Octets field MUST be set to zero
	on transmit.
	o Remaining Packet Padding is an optional field of variable length.
	The number of octets in the Remaining Packet Padding field is the
	value of the Server Octets field minus the length of the Server
	Octets field.
	4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode		4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
	STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:		STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Sequence Number |		| Sequence Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 7, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 33 ¶
	| |		| |
	| HMAC (16 octets) |		| HMAC (16 octets) |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated		Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated
	mode		mode
	The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,		The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
	listed in Section 4.1.1. Also, Comp.MBZ field is a variable length		listed in Section 4.1.1. Also, MBZ fields are used to align the
	field to align the packet on 16 octets boundary. Also, the packet		packet on 16 octets boundary. The value of the field MAY be zeroed
			on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Also, the packet
	includes a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104])		includes a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104])
	hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is		hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is
	described in Section 4.3.		described in Section 4.3.
	4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format		4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format
	The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet, verifies it,		The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet, verifies it,
	prepares and transmits the reflected test packet.		prepares and transmits the reflected test packet.
	Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected		Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected
	skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶
	| Receive Timestamp |		| Receive Timestamp |
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Session-Sender Sequence Number |		| Session-Sender Sequence Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Session-Sender Timestamp |		| Session-Sender Timestamp |
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ |		| Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Ses-Sender TTL | |		|Ses-Sender TTL | MBZ |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |
	~ Packet Padding (reflected) ~
	+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in		Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in
	unauthenticated mode		unauthenticated mode
	where fields are defined as the following:		where fields are defined as the following:
	o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the		o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the
	Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP		Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP
	Session-Reflector:		Session-Reflector:
	skipping to change at page 9, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 24 ¶
	in Section 4.1.		in Section 4.1.
	o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and		o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and
	Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding		Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding
	fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender.		fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender.
	o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the		o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the
	copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the		copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the
	received STAMP test packet.		received STAMP test packet.
	o Packet Padding (reflected) is an optional variable length field.		o MBZ is used to achieve alignment on a four octets boundary. The
	The length of the Packet Padding (reflected) field MUST be equal		value of the field MAY be zeroed on transmission and MUST be
	to the value of the Server Octets field (Figure 2). If the value		ignored on receipt.
	is non-zero, the Session-Reflector MUST copy number of octets
	equal to the value of Server Octets field starting with the Server
	Octets field.
	o Comp.MBZ is a variable length field used to achieve alignment on a
	word boundary. Thus the length of Comp.MBZ field may be only 0,
	1, 2 or 3 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on
	transmission and ignored on receipt.
	4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode		4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
	For the authenticated mode:		For the authenticated mode:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Sequence Number |		| Sequence Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 10, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 34 ¶
	| HMAC (16 octets) |		| HMAC (16 octets) |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated		Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated
	mode		mode
	The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,		The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
	listed in Section 4.2.1. Additionally, the packet MAY include		listed in Section 4.2.1. Additionally, the MBZ field is used to
	Comp.MBZ field is a variable length field to align the packet on 16		align the packet on 16 octets boundary. The value of the field MAY
	octets boundary. Also, STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in		be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Also,
	authenticated mode includes a key (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end		STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode
	of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.3.		includes a key (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU. The
			detailed use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.3.
	4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP		4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
	To provide integrity protection, each STAMP message is being		To provide integrity protection, each STAMP message is being
	authenticated by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC).		authenticated by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC).
	STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use		STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use
	of it in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC		of it in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC
	field is 16 octets. HMAC uses own key and the definition of the		field is 16 octets. HMAC uses its own key, and the definition of the
	mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is outside the scope of this		mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is outside the scope of this
	specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure		specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure
	HMAC key based on STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].		HMAC key based on STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].
	HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or		HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or
	propagating corrupted data.		propagating corrupted data.
	If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, encryption at		If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, encryption at
	the higher level MUST be used. For example, STAMP packets could be		the higher level MUST be used. For example, STAMP packets could be
	transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel		transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel
	with the monitored flow.		with the monitored flow.
	4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light		4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
	skipping to change at page 11, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 26 ¶
	interwork with a TWAMP Light device. There are two possible		interwork with a TWAMP Light device. There are two possible
	combinations for such use case:		combinations for such use case:
	o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector;		o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector;
	o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector.		o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector.
	In the former case, the Session-Sender MAY not be aware that its		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 does not support STAMP. For example, a TWAMP Light
	Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined		Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined
	in [RFC8545]. Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test		in [RFC8545]. Thus STAMP Session-Sender MAY use port numbers as
	packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or		defined in Section 4. If any of STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP
	Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a		Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field. The
	port number that both devices can use. And if any of STAMP		Session-Sender SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps -
	extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them		NTP. And it MAY use PTPv2 timestamp format.
	as Packet Padding field. The Session-Sender SHOULD use the default
	format for its timestamps - NTP. And it MAY use PTPv2 timestamp
	format.
	In the latter scenario, the test management system should set STAMP		In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not
	Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or		support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set
	Private Ports range. As for Packet Padding field that the TWAMP		STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number as defined in
	Light Session-Sender includes in its transmitted packet, the STAMP		Section 4. If the TWAMP Light Session-Sender includes Packet Padding
	Session-Reflector will process it according to [RFC6038] and return		field in its transmitted packet, the STAMP Session-Reflector will
	reflected packet of the symmetrical size. The Session-Reflector MUST		return the reflected packet of the symmetrical size if the size of
	use the default format for its timestamps - NTP.		the received test packet is larger than the size of the STAMP base
			packet. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default format
			for its timestamps, NTP.
			STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability defined in
			[RFC6038]. If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP
			Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the
			content starting from the Server Octets field but will transmit the
			reflected packet of equal size.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be		This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be
	removed before the publication.		removed before the publication.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	In general, all the security considerations related to TWAMP-Test,		In general, all the security considerations related to TWAMP-Test,
	discussed in [RFC5357] apply to STAMP. Since STAMP uses the well-		discussed in [RFC5357] apply to STAMP. Since STAMP uses the well-
	known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test		known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test
	Receiver port, the security considerations and measures to mitigate		Receiver port, the security considerations and measures to mitigate
	the risk of the attack using the registered port number documented in		the risk of the attack using the registered port number documented in
	Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP. Because of the control		Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP. Because of the control
	and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this		and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
	specification only the more general requirement is set:		specification only the more general requirement is set:
	To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control and management		To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control, and
	of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport.		management of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport.
			Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
			estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
			be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
			[RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
			for UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic
			depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
			the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
			STAMP test packets can be transmitted with the destination UDP port
			number from the User Ports range, as defined in Section 4, that is
			already or will be assigned by IANA. The possible impact of the
			STAMP test packets on the network MUST be thoroughly analyzed and the
			use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by all users on the network
			before starting the STAMP test session.
	Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data		Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
	integrity of the STAMP test packets.		integrity of the STAMP test packets.
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin		Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
	and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and		and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and
	identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions.		identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions.
	Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball for his thorough review and		Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball and Rakesh Gandhi or their
	helpful comments.		thorough reviews and helpful comments.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[IEEE.1588.2008]		[IEEE.1588.2008]
	"Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol		"Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
	for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",		for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
	IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008.		IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶
	[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,		[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
	"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms		"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
	Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,		Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
	[RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement		[RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement
	Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size		Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size
	Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010,		Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>.
			[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
			Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
			Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
			Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
			RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588		[RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588
	Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol		Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
	(TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,		(TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>.
	[RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port		[RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port
	skipping to change at page 13, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 11 ¶
	(OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol		(OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
	(TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,		(TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[BBF.TR-390]		[BBF.TR-390]
	"Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer		"Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer
	Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.		Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.
			[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
			Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote,
			"Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional
			Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-00 (work in
			progress), July 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
	Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active		Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
	Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-		Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-
	stamp-yang-03 (work in progress), March 2019.		stamp-yang-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
	[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-		[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
	Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,		Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
	[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-		[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
	384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,		384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
			[RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated
			Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
			Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
			(TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>.
			[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
			Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
			March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Greg Mirsky		Greg Mirsky
	ZTE Corp.		ZTE Corp.
	Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com		Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
	Guo Jun		Guo Jun
	ZTE Corporation		ZTE Corporation
	68# Zijinghua Road		68# Zijinghua Road
	Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012		Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
	P.R.China		P.R.China
	Phone: +86 18105183663		Phone: +86 18105183663
	Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn		Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
	Henrik Nydell		Henrik Nydell
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	96 lines changed or deleted		126 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/