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

[David Ball <[e-mail]>]

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).
  * 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.
  * 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.
  * 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 finda  port number that both devices can use.If any
    ofthe  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."


     David


-- 
David Ball
<[e-mail]>