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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC0F120114; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ink9Ew_6AkCp; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960EC12008C; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x788tvse044510; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:02:02 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2u89r5yt2u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 08 Aug 2019 05:02:01 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x78920Yf007736; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:02:00 -0400
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [135.66.87.38]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x7891sd5007657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:01:54 -0400
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 46680400B57C; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:01:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mlpi432.sfdc.sbc.com (unknown [144.151.223.11]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 0DE0E400B576; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:01:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sfdc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi432.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x7891soI004423; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:01:54 -0400
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by mlpi432.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x7891lUc004131; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:01:47 -0400
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8172D434DE8; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg4.research.att.com ([fe80::8cd:baa3:219e:5bd4]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 05:01:46 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
Thread-Index: AQHVNZ0amQo6PNCyFk2ZRVsFWcmbE6bBI+aAgAAWDYCAAD6oAIAAJQuAgADuSwCAJfN4gIAADqoAgAGE44CABJNAgIAABkeAgAAuxACAAPFGgIAAHzbwgABe8wCAAQlDAP//yR7w
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:01:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADAA75@njmtexg4.research.att.com>
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6f=x1j_fXAoqZ874y0nw7Y1wP0OeS9eFuToSBQfrqkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVWZ3utikyBRm4TDhRDuMd3cZ9-otbuX=Mbg0ioAGjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eJf2xjsRJwnBtd5KFHbwO4KX3gEjs_Nv1Dhf39ZWjegA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHTjpbWv4FGpOsfL94Zip3MsVvESyka5M8PrmNKFB=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6dGneYXFr3Xk_DuQnbwa=-ObV_SNdGOSj1Z203wW-PzTg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppn9jpCLaSLR3QSN=yA0uDyXXMCQ+Rm4qFrR5OrjS31Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eidFR-doLCvMim6HJZ142q_Q0V7XmiLP6Ki5_jmNvUxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADA7AE@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <CAMZsk6fODTiLctxJArHyVz9AvyKfrUwefPw0GPg+T3uhRFv6dg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbpqzriiZ8RqtFWR0+tjYUwj6A4AV=0d=w6_cMBHFHrF6Fw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALhTbpqzriiZ8RqtFWR0+tjYUwj6A4AV=0d=w6_cMBHFHrF6Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [79.3.201.102]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADAA75njmtexg4researc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-08_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908080102
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/dWn0AbWKwwzDhUlxUqB8j1s77a0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 09:02:12 -0000

Hi Rakesh and Henrik,

working from the VoIP testing example below, it seems as though
“ability to test on a specific port in the User range,
with prior agreement of users on the tested network”
should have been asked for-as a feature during
YANG model development?

the authors used the Dynamic Range to avoid *accidentally*
stepping on IANA-allocated User ports during auto-allocation:

             leaf sender-udp-port {
               type union {
                 type dynamic-port-number;
                 type enumeration {
                   enum autoallocate {
                     description
                       "Indicates that the Contol-Client will
                        auto-allocate the TWAMP-Test (UDP) port number
                        from the dynamic port range.";
                   }
with RFC 6335:
6.  Port Number Ranges

   TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
   port number registries.  The port registries for all of these
   transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers
   [RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each
   range in detail:

   o  the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
      (assigned by IANA)

   o  the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
      49151 (assigned by IANA)

providing our over-riding guidance.

If we agree that the sort of testing you describe means
adding a new feature to the model, then let’s give some thought
to how that might best be done.

Al

From: Henrik Nydell [mailto:hnydell@accedian.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:51 AM
To: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>om>; IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Agree Rakesh.
There is value in being able to for example as close as possibly mimic for example a VoIP flow on a network path, using typical UDP ports (5060 for example), and a typical VoIP IPG (20ms) and proper payload length to make the TWAMP flows be treated in the same way as the real RTP traffic by the network elements (firewalls, NAT or other port-sensitive devices).


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:02 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Al and Henrik.
If there is no specific requirement to add a limit on the UDP port range, it would be good to not have it in the STAMP draft as well as in the TWAMP Yang model. Let implementations decide what ports they can support (keeping in mind the assigned ones) and let operators decide what port they like to provision.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:34 AM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com<mailto:acm@research.att.com>> wrote:

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Henrik Nydell
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:30 AM
To: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>; Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

The range probably comes from the IANA definition of the ephemeral ports (49152 to 65535) although these are defined for short-lived TCP and not explicitly for UDP. Why this made it into the yang model for TWAMP-test (which is UDP) I dont know, probably someone mixed it up with TCP and it passed the reviewers without much thought.
[acm]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335#section-6<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6335-23section-2D6&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=Y3I4sW9cQ0UXh8cUXuPymXo9soP2KQFzein5oCkPdKE&e=>
seems clear to me, without making the distinction between TCP and UDP
you mention. There was discussion on the ippm-list IIRC, too.

Most, if not all, implementations of TWAMP I have seen does not impose limitations on the source UDP ports for the TWAMP-test packets when configuring via CLI. For example neither Accedian, Exfo, Viavi, Juniper, Nokia, Huawei impose any limitation like that when configuring via CLI or GUI.

With a yang model based configuration the user will of course be limited if they use the yang model that only defines the ephemeral range as valid. I see no severe disadvantages of this, but it would of course have been better if the yang model was less restrictive, since the restriction has no real value in itself.

[acm] ...except avoiding a port assigned by IANA...

Al

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:07 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Henrik. Where does this requirement come from? Also, how do I configure the UDP port outside the range using the TWAMP Yang model?

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:19 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com<mailto:hnydell@accedian.com>> wrote:
There is a distinction between "must be able to send to these destination ports" and "must only be able to send to these destination ports"

The first wording does not prohibit senders to be able to send also to other destination ports.


On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Many thanks for the reply.
As there are already implementations out there where such restrictions do not exist as discussed in another email thread (just forwarded them), the following text with MUST is already violated. The TWAMP Yang model draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=> should also not place such restriction.
Section 4.4
       Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
       packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
       Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a
       port number that both devices can use.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Rakesh,
my apologies for the misspelling of your name.
Thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed update.
Regarding the definition of the range of the valid UDP port numbers, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=> uses type dynamic-port-number as follows:
     typedef dynamic-port-number {
       type inet:port-number {
         range 49152..65535;
       }
       description "Dynamic range for port numbers.";
     }
to specify the valid range for a sender-udp-port. The range for a UDP port number of a Session-Reflector has been specified slightly differently because it includes the well-known port 862:
           leaf reflector-udp-port {
             type inet:port-number {
               range "862 | 49152..65535";
               }
             description
               "The destination UDP port number used in the
                TWAMP-Test (UDP) test packets belonging to this
                test session.";
           }
But, as we observe, in both cases definitions include the Dynamic/Private range explicitly defined. I think that keeping STAMP specification consistent with the TWAMP, TWAMP YANG data model in particular, in the way the valid range of UDP ports is being specified, is beneficial to the STAMP document. Hope you'll agree.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Greg for considering my review comments.
Good to see the message format aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv and using MBZ 30. This should fix the interoperability issue between the two. This also gives few (3) bytes for any future extensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may fix the spelling of my name and another typo below:
OLD:
and Rakesh Gandi or their

NEW:
and Rakesh Gandhi for their
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not see following comment addressed. Is that intentional?
------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Thanks Greg for the reply.

    In this case, should the draft just state that the Session-Sender can select destination UDP port number following the guidelines specified in [RFC6335], instead of specifying following?

Section 4.4
    Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
       packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
       Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a
       port number that both devices can use.
----------------------------------------------

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Rakesh,
thank you for your helpful comments. We've updated the format of the base STAMP test packet. Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes, comments and questions,

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Regarding the size of the padding, yes, it's good to use the same size payload for query and response.
However, the STAMP payload with TLV extension (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01) has slightly different padding size (27 ( or > 29) vs. 30). Is there a way to make them compatible? Does it mean that for STAMP with TLV, Server Octets is set to 1, but it says MBZ 0 for all 30 bytes. If the responder supports Server Octets and see the size > 27, it may find the Server Octet size of 0 confusing?

Thanks,
Rakesh





On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Shahram,
thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com<mailto:shahram.davari@broadcom.com>> wrote:
HI Greg

I read your draft and have the following questions:

1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver differentiate between TWAMP and STAMP?
GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:

  *   challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of TWAMP-Light;
  *   industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP broadband access networks (TR-390);
  *   improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of CoS in the network.
3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets the default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.

Thx
Shahram

On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Mirja,
thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
      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].

If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

See below.

> On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> 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.
> NEW TEXT:
>       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.

Mirja



>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> 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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> 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 <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>


--

Henrik Nydell
Sr Product Manager
1.866.685.8181
hnydell@accedian.com<mailto:hnydell@accedian.com>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=> [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>  [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
accedian.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>


Avis de confidentialité

Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur. Merci.

Confidentiality notice

This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.


--

Henrik Nydell
Sr Product Manager
1.866.685.8181
hnydell@accedian.com<mailto:hnydell@accedian.com>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=> [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>  [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
accedian.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>


Avis de confidentialité

Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur. Merci.

Confidentiality notice

This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.


--

Henrik Nydell
Sr Product Manager
1.866.685.8181
hnydell@accedian.com<mailto:hnydell@accedian.com>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>
[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=0ltpwFIjvuZ8sVhjuD2RN1tIgObw07RIgL_4j3vK9Zc&e=> [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=QTHdaq6bXMydVVJSnS8pfuhqEnLCWzO0tP9A-gyMWBA&e=>  [https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=V_ehVarzjW8vvOqJeyq61146LyKQ_Rgz1fNJzJw1waI&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=9V6-ggZb009wP2eti0vCu9OWNz1EgxcbDPqe0xCailk&e=>
accedian.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>


Avis de confidentialité

Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur. Merci.

Confidentiality notice

This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.