Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-03.txt

"MORTON JR., AL" <> Tue, 18 May 2021 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B012C3A11C4; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBp3mdV52evT; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C3C3A11AF; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 14IMFANe002174; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:53 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 38m20xnax6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:52 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 14IMHoTJ012388; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:51 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 14IMHnUF012384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:49 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id B51AC40145A3; Tue, 18 May 2021 22:17:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTP id 4C51340145A4; Tue, 18 May 2021 22:17:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.4; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:37 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.008; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:17:37 -0400
From: "MORTON JR., AL" <>
To: Tommy Pauly <>, IETF IPPM WG <>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXPUvRJJIB9KQ+7k+mPaROknbrlqrSPyQAgAaMYgCAERHC8A==
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 22:17:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: EBC97665EEAA309D12D74E26E4C66238DE8382031E7F9E130B5B0212E91D2B9A2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5fd8d0ac3dea4bd8aa24080431645726attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: eSPdAC53j9m6JsW3I8d1xTYx2MyJgPl_
X-Proofpoint-GUID: eSPdAC53j9m6JsW3I8d1xTYx2MyJgPl_
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-18_10:2021-05-18, 2021-05-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105180151
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-03.txt
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 22:18:00 -0000

Hi Tommy and IPPM,

There seems like good support for taking-up this draft already, so I’ll add a few comments/questions.

In the *second sentence*, 😊

SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-
   MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes [RFC8402<>].
Forwarding planes or control planes seems more correct at this point in the description.
Yes, I understand that we will be measuring the IP path, but that happens after
introducing SR and RFC 8402.

In section 3, at the end  (where the draft handles a test packet reaching the wrong destination):

   ... The STAMP Session-Reflector that supports

   this TLV, MUST NOT transmit reply test packet if it is not the

   intended destination node of the received Session-Sender test packet.

I think it would be more operationally sound to reply with an “Error: wrong destination” indication
(maybe just for a few packets) when the Destination Node Address TLV doesn’t match, rather than
black-holing the test packets with no feedback. This must have been a problem that is prevalent-
enough to warrant the Destination Node Address TLV to protect measurement integrity. I’m just
suggesting that we help the test org when we can.

The rest looks ok to me at the moment. Thanks for a good effort, authors!

From: ippm <> On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-03.txt


This draft has been discussed and debated at length before, and the chairs would like to get input from the WG on their thoughts on this version of the document and its direction. Given the interaction with other working groups, we’d like to make progress on this in a timely fashion.

Please do send your thoughts and feedback to the list, particularly if you support this work, or if you have concerns new or existing.


On May 3, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Rakesh Gandhi <<>> wrote:

Hi WG,
This revision contains following updates:

  *   Welcome Richard as a co-author
  *   Merge Segment List Sub-TLVs
  *   Various editorial changes

Welcome your review comments and suggestions.

Rakesh (for co-authors)

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:03 PM <<>> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Simple TWAMP (STAMP) Extensions for Segment Routing Networks
        Authors         : Rakesh Gandhi
                          Clarence Filsfils
                          Daniel Voyer
                          Mach(Guoyi) Chen
                          Bart Janssens
                          Richard Foote
        Filename        : draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-03.txt
        Pages           : 12
        Date            : 2021-04-29

   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm.  SR is
   applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
   (SRv6) data planes.  This document specifies RFC 8762 (Simple Two-Way
   Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)) extensions for SR networks, for
   both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes by augmenting the optional
   extensions defined in RFC 8972.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:<;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRjTFCb9V$>

There are also htmlized versions available at:<;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRjVY2APL$><;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRtQTf63g$>

A diff from the previous version is available at:<;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRnAt9rKc$>

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at<;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRp_qDpwP$>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRp4yrs_L$>

ippm mailing list<><;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRnJ73ayt$>
ippm mailing list<><;!!BhdT!3G9e0gVbqR-U1_DXAkMexECpUR-T0SkaBKPrisL66T_y_wod9mGnRnJ73ayt$>