Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS)

Greg Mirsky <> Tue, 10 September 2019 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91F21200A1; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5gB7aE8Fboy4; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BCEA12022A; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u13so14605557lfm.9; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QdGvaNzBbIjjuifBUxPgwTW345VSR1mU46dMouTDjhU=; b=MN50a6RP4IsY5knkqLndOE4aEk2c7cnp575vS10R7AH+iLe7swVPTPbdipb9InbXy/ T7SRpbDyhT0EWVkv0ZxUXQtzghgLqk2ILYA9Chnr4pwTkm6uc7vIJDUeKNPhLFZhnTNC XR27u4qefi3x8Q8Y8FTa/OCSUdSslMMMmlOVss4w7/Ze0mpQqLMXvuuNQt/DoyuS6tGo sf4Pk2J+BXjL+a3Dkly11wRKyRhL4Um0hvHjt0TIdB67MWn8lhjFrZ7/29uM8rr7q/W8 Fr6fZNjN170QvBR2MlXQn/7IbiLEKn4bg7EThHvJFFhsKnl6sJGYsmwgyUfCQP++3TUE knRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QdGvaNzBbIjjuifBUxPgwTW345VSR1mU46dMouTDjhU=; b=IociB7lz6B4QRgHk8Ya92f8Q9UNCqbenP8QEMrh6m88qC/4mfI9hdQJymW9EIV1LzQ pg34s8nGYN6A0kRhQOJ9egW2fLNbL6bCdqw9Mcccu4eZEYKOPMXol6zk5VdD0i38g6bG JKUmopbyg7Q2WRDi3E9FE7QDHbgkebZtUsJgJmU9e9jK4jH4HA8nSWXLAFPfFj6dgaWD YrFgeP5JoLXCRBNDveSJov3b/V0sEmcPxJbb4+P+1MBdmwW0skfMtZP905PI70yLfper P3t0mcegSt2a0/MbiWYYWBry0KQpYXfKBdqrASmKDS89cY+LSmJ1Tn5oBfa7N+G645tj +HOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRG2YCAb4fi8taAg2N8FApYRhq7H+J6AZ8++LyNEPbhqYLgSE/ BffirL7f48Evc7vjAIiaAmYLoAplPwwBpQLtY3s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7JdUk08WtK7PvdwBNAeWxqTzjuj7UQIZ1LywhyRJcSKgsW0nwcxs6svyRNBlmkOCcJdsR+t48qKyt1/A4Tc0=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5485:: with SMTP id t5mr15564387lfk.27.1568149269361; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:00:57 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Tal Mizrahi <>, IPPM Chairs <>, IETF IPPM WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027b91a05923934cf"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS)
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, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:14 -0000

Hi Barry,
thank you for your pointed question. Please find my explanation and the
proposed updated below under the GIM>> tag.


On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:53 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <>

> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: Discuss
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure this will be easy to either explain to me or re-phrase:
> Sections 4 and 6 both say something like "MUST be agreed by all users of
> the
> network".  What does that really mean?  How is it remotely possible to get
> agreement from all users of your network?  How is it remotely possible that
> they could understand what you're asking them to agree to?

GIM>> Yes, looking at the bigger picture, at the Internet rather than only
at the domain where the test will be performed makes such condition
unattainable. Would s/network/network domain where the test is planned/  so
that it reads as:

... MUST be agreed by all users on the network domain where the test is
planned ...

make it clearer and the number of parties involved reasonable, practical?
As for what the could be the question users will be asked, I think that it
should verify whether the application that has the port number assigned is
active as the same number will be used as the destination port number in
the STAMP test.