Re: [ippm] Review Questions for draft-ietf-ippm-route-04

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Footer,

Finally making a few minutes for your questions,
sorry for the delay, and thanks for your review.

@Tal, a question for you about the Experimental Status 
of RFC 7820, at the end.

Please see below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Foote, Footer
> (Nokia - CA)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 11:06 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [ippm] Review Questions for draft-ietf-ippm-route-04
> 
> Between meetings, I read the draft draft-ietf-ippm-route-04, re-read the
> draft and read it once more.  I see value in the solidification of
> terminology, previous thread on the mailing list include many comments on
> this.   My initial thoughts on the draft, are interest in the work for
> link awareness for participating nodes, along the path and ability to
> relate metrics for the well identified path and members.  This will help
> correlate measurements to specific paths, at least those which are
> participating.
> 
> A couple of quick questions;
> 
> 1)  Section 3.6 Reporting Metric " The models need to be expanded to
> include these features, as well as Arrival Interface ID, Departure
> Interface ID, and Arrival Timestamp, when available."
> -   Should this specify some type of identification for how to interpret
> that timestamp format (NTP or PTP) .
[acm] 
Since we concluded at IETF-105 to list requirements in this section, 
and punt future work to a YANG model, I don't think we'll go into 
the detail of formats for any of the new features. Probably avoid 
the bitstream formats and go with something human-readable instead,
such as https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-5.6 in the 
future YANG model.

>  -  Should departure Timestamp be included as well, would this address the
> concern about the Section 2 scope comment " unknown contribution of
> processing time at the host that generates the ICMP response."
[acm] 
I don't think we have the protocol feature to carry the Departure timestamp
in ICMP from the remote host. We are focusing on the one-way aspects of 
the route, so it makes sense to include the original sender's timestamp.
I'll add that.

> 
> 
> 2) Section 4.1 makes reference to the experimental RFC7280 " UDP Checksum
> Complement in  the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way
> Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)" is the a common accepted practice for
> addressing UDP checksum considerations.  I do not know the history why
> RFC7280 was Categorized as Experimental.
[acm] 
I don't remember, and I was the document shepherd - nothing in the write-up:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer/shepherdwriteup/

Perhaps Tal can help us, if he remembers.

> 
> Footer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=_pDZtXzwgV0TTXCvaXCgEofTKu4go
> Qsl2hiHdVOrswQ&s=PA3aPrV94QkwD5QFlXV3B0-CRhn-diGvyrHq6NfEWpI&e=