Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt

Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply.
After some good discussions between the IPPM and SPRING chairs, it has
already been agreed that the draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm will be hosted
in SPRING. It is captured in the chairs update at the last IETF meeting:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-spring-sessa-chairs-slides-01

Original purpose of the draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv accepted as a WG
document was to define TLVs for STAMP. But now it is also modifying the
STAMP packet format. Shouldn't SSID (session ID) be in a STAMP TLV? It can
then be 32-bit number (as opposed to 16-bit) and can be used for encoding
additional information.

This way, we can keep the 16-bits available in the STAMP packet format for
future use - instead of leaving no space at all and using up all the
available bits in the message for SSID.

Recall that draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm only uses one bit flag from the
16-bit field, rest is still available.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:12 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
> thank you for your expedient clarification. I think that one assumption
> made in your draft requires very careful consideration by IPPM WG that had
> worked on STAMP for quite some time already. Here's the paragraph that
> raises a question:
>    The loss measurement probe and query messages defined in this
>    document are also equally applicable to STAMP and STAMP TLVs, and use
>    the message formats defined in [I-D.ippm-stamp].
> As I understand, you've planned to anchor this work at SPRING WG though
> you propose to update documents developed in IPPM WG. Perhaps Chars of
> these two WGs will discuss and suggest to you on the appropriate WG to host
> this draft.
> As for the proposed changes to STAMP, I believe that these should be
> handled with lots of caution and we encourage authors to make the use of
> the STAMP extension mechanism provided by TLVs.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:10 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>> Thanks for your reply.
>> The draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm includes both TWAMP Light and STAMP
>> (Section 3.2) (TLVs for STAMP in other sections). Two drafts are updating
>> the same field in the STAMP packet format.
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:14 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rakesh,
>>> thank you for your interest in the update to STAMP extensions. Can you
>>> elaborate on where you see the conflict between STAMP and your proposal? Is
>>> the change you've proposed applicable to STAMP test packet? As far as I
>>> understand, STAMP cannot support your proposal and interwork with a system
>>> that is complaint with draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm. As for STAP
>>> interworking with TWAMP in Unauthenticated mode, SSID doesn't change
>>> anything, as TWAMP Session-Sender will zero the field and Session-Reflector
>>> will ignore it on receipt. So I don't see conflict here at all. I greatly
>>> appreciate your clarification.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <
>>> rgandhi@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that this STAMP TLV draft update is proposing to modify the
>>>> STAMP packet format to contain SSID.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>
>>>>       |         Error Estimate        |             SSID              |
>>>>
>>>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SRPM draft posted in December had already proposed to use the same
>>>> field for control-code.
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-05
>>>>
>>>>     .                                                               .
>>>>
>>>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>
>>>>     |         Error Estimate        | Reserved      |  Control Code |
>>>>
>>>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>
>>>>     .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like there is a conflict in packet format update proposed that
>>>> need to sort out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Rakesh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
>>>> gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>> *To: *IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
>>>> *Subject: *[ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> the new version includes updates to the Followup Telemetry TLV and
>>>> introduces the new HMAC TLV.
>>>>
>>>> We always welcome and greatly appreciate your comments, questions, and
>>>> suggestions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 8:04 AM
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
>>>> To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com <hnydell@accedian..com>>, Min
>>>> Xiao <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>, Adi Masputra <adi@apple.com>, Ernesto
>>>> Ruffini <eruffini@outsys.org>, Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>,
>>>> Richard Foote <footer.foote@nokia.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
>>>> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Name:           draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
>>>> Revision:       03
>>>> Title:          Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional
>>>> Extensions
>>>> Document date:  2020-02-21
>>>> Group:          ippm
>>>> Pages:          25
>>>> URL:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03.txt
>>>> Status:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv/
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
>>>> Diff:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    This document describes optional extensions to Simple Two-way Active
>>>>    Measurement Protocol (STAMP) which enable measurement performance
>>>>    metrics in addition to ones supported by the STAMP base
>>>>    specification.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>
>>