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

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg, Tim,

Thank you for your review comments.

Please see replies inline with <RG>...

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:37 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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/>.
>
>
<RG> Acking.


>
>    - 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).
>
>
<RG> Yes.


>
>    - 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.
>
> <RG> Yes.


> Again, apologies for my notes being so late.
>

Many thanks,
Rakesh




>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:35 PM Tim Chown via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>