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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Greg, this looks good, and many thanks for that!  Minor typo:

   Using STAMP over the Internet, especially
   when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the destination UDP port
   number from the User Ports range, the possible impact of the STAMP
   test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed.

It should say "When using STAMP over the Internet..."

I'll clear the DISCUSS when this is posted as a draft revision.

Barry

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:19 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
> thank you for your suggestions. Based on your comments, the authors decided to add a new Operational Consideration section:
> NEW TEXT:
> 5.  Operational Considerations
>
>    STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the
>    operator to assess service level agreements based on packet delay,
>    delay variation, and loss.  Using STAMP over the Internet, especially
>    when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the destination UDP port
>    number from the User Ports range, the possible impact of the STAMP
>    test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed.  The use of STAMP for each
>    case MUST be agreed by users of nodes hosting the Session-Sender and
>    Session-Reflector before starting the STAMP test session.
>
>    Also, the use of the well-known port number as the destination UDP
>    port number in STAMP test packets transmitted by a Session-Sender
>    would not impede the ability to measure performance in an Equal Cost
>    Multipath environment and analysis in Section 5.3 [RFC8545] fully
>    applies to STAMP.
>
> As the new section includes the discussion of using port numbers from the User Ports range, the Security Considerations section has been updated to avoid the duplication (please see the attached working version and the diff).
>
> Much appreciate your comments on the updated text.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:51 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Greg; I look forward to it.
>>
>> b
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 8:35 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Barry,
>> > thank you for the clarification. Yes, I agree that a new section can state it more clearly and give sufficient examples, as you've suggested.
>> > I'll work on it and will share when it is ready.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Greg, and thanks for the response.
>> >>
>> >> I think a minor rephrasing of the requirement isn't enough, really.
>> >> As I understand it now, after other discussion, it's not that you need
>> >> agreement from the users, but that you should put a paragraph (or
>> >> maybe a separate section, to highlight the point) that says that this
>> >> is not intended for use on the open Internet nor on production
>> >> networks, and gives examples of what it *is* intended for... perhaps
>> >> test networks, production networks during advertised maintenance
>> >> windows, that sort of thing.  And then you don't need to say that the
>> >> network's users need to agree, but simply that they need to be aware
>> >> that performance testing will be happening during period X, and that
>> >> disruptions to normal network operation are possible.  You'd need to
>> >> come up with text that the working group agrees with, of course, but I
>> >> think that if you do it will address my concern as well as some of the
>> >> others that were raised.
>> >>
>> >> Does that make sense?
>> >>
>> >> Barry
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:01 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Barry,
>> >> > thank you for your pointed question. Please find my explanation and the proposed updated below under the GIM>> tag.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Greg
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:53 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> >> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> DISCUSS:
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.