Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 23 April 2019 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 D09AC12037B for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FtGwmRwltM9f for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0039120374 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id h21so14712073ljk.13 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1nVLCBYsjS4qmNNI6AK5acuNVW/oFtloVXsBXuDacMY=; b=Kh1euaBRwAT1smtHURe0TXs4t8SKA+oJoZTABU+I6LvYuACxJg7QERMVbPZOT/XQlD fYbUY3h8t2dVFtEj1svqKqgOc69c36g2TIQhcnu4RIAWR4I8Bleur+EWV6D2Zyp2/8Zw jnmqihUjWiF5UKuME61hpo23v1n+vm5ojh6ItWODUF+BvovxYIuRv+JwPAiSpm3ko0ig 8ql9knqz5A1XBV9ERrfM0N4GTKLib721CBpP778stX2Ea+huimQpAhcXKjUeWlcizLw3 p3GyrseOjvsCh79pVZBHQV7eSmEQhDM642WvdE3aMcA8lJHrrgpxuzvf4Se/UaKGLtCV 1YrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1nVLCBYsjS4qmNNI6AK5acuNVW/oFtloVXsBXuDacMY=; b=DhO7RFVjzQkeqNI5hdJ4Izd4+PCBW69Ba49m3xN5ILw2HH/AJoZiPVU1Mi8H9mPgvq /3hc9DaCxWWTKpCRRo/KA9yl8sMRVZnnKlLzlH8OLYf4/aCry03YZ3NedjUZrl2pf3iT OrjEby+mZnMTuZz8F+n01KJAu9FPSlDGyZBAhPTg9REudVpn2RV7L7Os87vUES5C9eoR z90idOlN2r8zFtLvb3mHJIoHZEM/lofunRcgml4vq+Q2ZNqjuZAXoQwcY1sTNzV8RKB9 Xp0kdQiFoUTElGZl/AFxysLtEDbx+rKxICxqWyTbZ76eFNxA7CR7214dL49JwXGX/f8S Hn+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUrE9HQjEFQoYuYhf+5R4uRvLpPPKwo71Ui6l0hQEPNDTs8ImC P/mDmlP0maYNjm8mZPVZBgfCG2JAIbZmebQiMAU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzLKF082FFx24BizxVj/GTvbRQWlyzXwCuPtRTXcrqFdZbc4f6NtzsqEu8SkosmuThRx7MPKbdHWou5m6oje8k=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3009:: with SMTP id w9mr121263ljw.14.1556052108959; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3600b860-32f8-0636-7093-eaddd2fb380d@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3600b860-32f8-0636-7093-eaddd2fb380d@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:41:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWBWisBSM2AGe+GWxNKCFGyopqjGeL5QE4LaKUfjD6c8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Ball <daviball@cisco.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000350e7c0587389d02"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/fzII4BSVWPEpTYeZEnVa9gjFyA0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:41:59 -0000

Hi David,
apologies for the delayed update. I've prepared the new version of the
draft to address your comments and comments by the draft Shepherd Tal
Mizrahi. Please find the diff, the updated new version attached. Also, I've
added a couple explaining notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag.
Much appreciate your feedback.

Regards,
Greg


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:26 AM David Ball <daviball@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed the document and am fine with it progressing.
>
> A few nits:
>
>    - The text at the start of Sn 4.1.1 should be before the 4.1.1 heading
>    (after the 4.1 heading).
>
> GIM>> Accepted and done.

>
>    - Sn 4.1.1 - the bullet about Server Octets has a spurious extra
>    part-sentence: "The Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038]." - this
>    should be deleted.
>
> GIM>> The comment from Shepherd suggested re-wording the sentence. Please
let me know if the following change is acceptable:
OLD TEXT:
The Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038].
NEW TEXT:
This field is used for the Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038].

>
>    -
>    - Fig 4 shows a min length of 112 (if I counted right); but text at
>    the start of 4.1.1 says the min length in authenticated mode is 48.
>
> GIM>> Great catch, thank you! It must be 112 - corrected the text.

>
>    - The wording/grammar in the paragraph after bullets in Sn 4.4 is a
>    little awkward - suggested edits below:
>
>   "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 may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05#ref-I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test>].  Thus, the STAMP Session-Sender MUST be
>    able to send test packets to destination UDP port numbers taken from the
>    Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.  The test management
>    system should find a port number that both devices can use.  If any
>    of the TLV-based STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-
>    Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field.  The Session-Sender
>    SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps (NTP) but it MAY
>    use PTPv2 timestamp format."
>
> GIM>> Many thanks. Accepted.

>
>      David
>
>
> --
> David Ball<daviball@cisco.com> <daviball@cisco.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>