IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.txt

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Tue, 25 August 2020 02:52 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 2F4C93A10E6; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 NY6SoKxo1mDN; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:51:59 -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 8C05D3A10E3; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E4782A77FEEE6D63FCA6; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 03:51:57 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.83) by lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 03:51:57 +0100
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.41) by lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 03:51:57 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.71]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:51:54 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RE:[ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.txt
Thread-Index: AdZ6ilUvI7J+GKdCR0ermgeO/WrtOQ==
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:51:54 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404F785B1@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.136]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404F785B1dggeml524mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/tBsUxmzfiVGf_51ANFc5_HouVVs>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.txt
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:52:02 -0000

Hi Greg and all,

May I have some questions and comments about the STAMP TLV Type Registry?

First, as shown in the Table 1, code points in the range 252-254 is allocated for Private Use. Does it mean each Vendor/Enterprise can just define three kinds of STAMP TLV? What's your consideration about the three code points allocation for Vendor Private Use ?

Second, if the TLV Type or sub-TLV Type is Experimental, similarly to Private Use, does it need to fill the vendor's SMI Private Enterprise Code in the first four octets of Value field? Please give some clarifications any expected restrictions on experimental scope. Such as said in [RFC8126], whether it's acceptable to run experiments using those code points over the open Internet or whether such experiments should be confined to more closed environments.

Best regards,
Yali




---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org><mailto:&lt;internet-drafts@ietf.org&gt;>

Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:01 PM

Subject: New Version Notification for

draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.txt

To: Richard Foote <footer.foote@nokia.com><mailto:&lt;footer.foote@nokia.com&gt;>om>, Greg Mirsky <

gregimirsky@gmail.com><mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com&gt;>gt;, Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com><mailto:&lt;hnydell@accedian.com&gt;>om>, Adi Masputra <

adi@apple.com><mailto:adi@apple.com&gt;>gt;, Ernesto Ruffini <eruffini@outsys.org><mailto:&lt;eruffini@outsys.org&gt;>rg>, Xiao Min <

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn><mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn&gt;>







A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.txt

has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the

IETF repository.



Name:           draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

Revision:       09

Title:          Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional

Extensions

Document date:  2020-08-21

Group:          ippm

Pages:          32

URL:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-09.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-09

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-09



Abstract:

   This document describes optional extensions to Simple Two-way Active

   Measurement Protocol (STAMP) that enable measurement of performance

   metrics.  The document also defines a STAMP Test Session Identifier

   and thus updates RFC 8762.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email