IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <wangyali11@huawei.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 ED1EE3A0E54 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FJPn0dSGgMGT for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 01:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6A03A0E4B for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 01:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id F0FA69DDB2F4092AFDF5; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:40:35 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) by lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:40:35 +0100
Received: from DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.39) by lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:40:35 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.54]) by DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::b177:a243:7a69:5ab8%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:40:30 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "gregimirsky@gmail.com" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "xiao.min2@zte.com.cn" <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions
Thread-Index: AQHWMH+26OiJyF5dSUuApbj12bMOlqjDbqOw
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:40:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404E7D60D@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAKcm_gMVc88xpkOMmV7L-ybVCBzw+LhNS6Jw3=iB2gutR0ZhxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gMVc88xpkOMmV7L-ybVCBzw+LhNS6Jw3=iB2gutR0ZhxA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.65]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404E7D60Ddggeml524mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/nDrnfJ9MqW02tGTgC_wBwl_PsVY>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:40:41 -0000

Hi authors and IPPM,

I support its publication. But after reading, I have two questions and comments as follows:


1.       In the draft, I confused a sentence that said ‘The Session-Sender MUST NOT stop the session if it receives a zeroed  SSID field.’ If a STAMP Session-Reflector that does not support this specification and return the zeroed SSID field in the reflected STAMP test packet, the STAMP Session-Sender MUST stop the session. I assume there’s a edit error.



2.       Does the TLV field shown in figure 1 indicate that the STAMP Session-Sender test packet with TLV in unauthenticated mode can contains one or more TLVs defined in this draft? I suggest to give an illustration about the TLV field in the test packet and revise TLV field in figure 1 that is not very clear.

Best regards,
Yali



From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Swett
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 5:26 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for STAMP Extensions

Hi IPPM,

At our virtual interim meeting, we decided draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv was ready for last call. This email starts a two-week WGLC for this draft.

The latest version can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-04

This last call will end on Monday, June 8th. Please reply to ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> with your reviews and comments.

Thanks,
Ian & Tommy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email