[ippm] Re: Request to review draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Ruediger for your thoughts on the draft.

Please see relies inline with <RG>…

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2025 at 3:15 AM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: AW: Request to review draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber
Hi Rakesh,

after brief reading, I think the basic motivation of the draft seems alright. Thoughts:

  *   The draft should add a BER metric definition, as is available for other IPPM metrics.

<RG> Yes, that’s a good idea. We could add examples such as:

(1) Total Bits transmitted and reveived in each direction in a given interval.
(2) Bit Error rare in each direction in a given interval
(3) Number packets transmitted vs. Received with Bit errors in each direction in a given interval.



  *   The draft should provide some more discussion on parametrization. If all L1/L2/L3 headers and non-bit-pattern fields are larger than the measurement bit-pattern, it is more likely that a bit-error hits one of these non-measurement fields.

<RG> Yes, we can add some text on this.
<RG> Note that it does not currently detect bit errors in the headers and base STAMP packet to keep the solution simple.


  *   I also missed a discussion, whether and if yes how the "Bit Pattern in Padding Data" bit pattern is protected against bit errors or how these are detected, if they occurred.

<RG> Yes, we can add some text on this.
<RG> One option is to configure the pattern on the Reflector.
<RG> Another option is to declare the measurement invalid as most of the data in the packet would be detected as bit errors if the pattern had a bit error.

Thanks,
Rakesh



Regards,

Ruediger

Von: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. April 2025 23:29
An: IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Betreff: [ippm] Request to review draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber

Hi IPPM WG,

We have introduced a new draft on using STAMP for Bit Error Detection.

We would greatly appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you may have.
Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 2:47 PM
To: Peter Schoenmaker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber-00.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber
Revision: 00
Title:    Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for Bit Error Detection and Bit Error Rate Measurement
Date:     2025-04-16
Group:    Individual Submission
Pages:    10
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber-00.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber/
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber


Abstract:

   The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), as defined in
   RFC 8762, along with its optional extensions specified in RFC 8972,
   can be utilized for active measurement.  This document further
   augments the STAMP extensions specified in RFC 8972 to enable the
   detection of bit errors and the measurement of the bit error rate
   (BER) within the "Extra Padding Data" of STAMP packets.



The IETF Secretariat