IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@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 67D5F1200B1; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 NSTlplpapljt; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:59:43 -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 DAE7D120090; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 552654320EA8BB7759F5; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:59:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:59:39 +0100
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:59:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:59:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.134]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:59:28 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org" <draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
Thread-Index: AQHVJzbIPNuLaD81EkmxWIGmMvnQLqaqhWLw
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:59:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE61343@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <CA+RyBmXtiEQRhJxT5V=MrTZW_kH7nsS=M2t3QfW+WS3J8=8zag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXtiEQRhJxT5V=MrTZW_kH7nsS=M2t3QfW+WS3J8=8zag@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE61343NKGEML515MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/wLSHHFXVeuHENwR3D69tVsW7uBo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:59:46 -0000

Hi Greg,

Several clarification questions after reading this draft.

1. Maybe wrt to section 4. Could you please explicitly describe the mechanism to detect the existence of TLVs, in addition to the fixed message part?

2. Could you please describe the use case for each TLV you proposed? Especially the “Location TLV” and the “Class of Service TLV”. I can hardly understand why these two are useful, and how to use them to do measurement/collection.

Thanks,
Tianran

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 3:06 PM
To: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

Dear Chairs, et al.,
authors of draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv believe that it is stable and detailed enough to ask for your consideration to start the WG Adoption Poll.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email