Re: [ippm] IPPM adoption call for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts

Hi Ruediger,
thank you for your kind words and supporting this work; much appreciated.
Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 4:05 PM <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> wrote:

> Hi Tommy,
>
>
>
> I’ve read the document and support adoption.
>
>
>
> Comments:
>
>    - The security issue has been raised by others already. I’d appreciate
>    reliable safeguards as part of the specification to avoid misuse.
>
> GIM>> We'll work on improving the issues related to the security that have
been noted in the course of the WG AP.

>
>    - If relevant to the authors, DiffServ related topics may be added,
>    i.e. setting a DSCP and / or some ECN Bit Combinations on the return path.
>    I think the latter feature might be of interest, as L4S introduction may
>    benefit from section-wise testing facilities along an end to end path to
>    ensure transparent ECN bit transport (and locate nodes which reset ECN
>    bits). I just note, that reporting the ECN Bits received by the reflector
>    may be of interest too (but that’s a different story then, I guess).
>
> GIM>> A very interesting angle, thank you. We will look and invite you and
others to investigate the applicability of Class of Service TLV
(defined in Section
4.4 of RFC 8972
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8972#name-class-of-service-tlv>)
in combination with this and, possibly, other STAMP extensions. It seems
like Clss of Service TLV provide the control that can be used in the
scenario you describe.

>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ruediger
>
>
>
> *Von:* ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> *Im Auftrag von * Tommy Pauly
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 9. April 2024 18:28
> *An:* IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Betreff:* [ippm] IPPM adoption call for
> draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
>
>
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
>
>
> This email starts an adoption call
> for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts. This is a document we’ve discussed
> several times, and is a normative dependency for another document we
> discussed adopting at IETF 119, draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr.
>
>
>
> You can find the draft here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-04.html#name-reflected-test-packet-control
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and respond to this email to indicate if you think
> IPPM should adopt this document as a working group item.
>
>
>
> This call will last for 3 weeks. Please reply by *Tuesday, April 30*.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tommy & Marcus
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>