Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Mirja Kuehlewind <> Mon, 08 July 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513FD12029C; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3fWwgN9qB1K; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B4C12029B; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2001:16b8:2cc4:d100:4c0:3462:e129:448d]); authenticated by running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hkW2V-00051f-Qf; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 17:58:51 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 17:58:51 +0200
Cc:, IPPM Chairs <>, IETF IPPM WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hkW2V-00051f-Qf
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:59:06 -0000

Hi Greg,

See below.

> On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <> wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
> thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
>       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 using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
>       particular before launching the test session.

Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you could have a separate sentence like:

“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 say in the limits as provided in RFC8085.”

Or something similar…

BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref. However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.


> Regards,
> Greg
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
> Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes. Sorry for the unconvience.
> Mirja
> > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments. Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
> > Hi authors, hi all,
> > 
> > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up! I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
> > 
> > I believe this document should say something about network load and congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this document could be good.
> > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management components:
> >    Because of the control
> >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
> >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
> > adding the new text here:
> >       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.
> > 
> > 
> > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol. Just to make things crystal clear.
> > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence of Theory of  Operations section:
> >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
> > 
> > Mirja
> > 
> > P.S.:
> > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test protocol/
> > -> “an” missing
> > GIM>> Thank you. Done. 
> > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt - draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07.txt.html>