Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 945351202BE; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 HnP-dYmUlh_k; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ABB512038A; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id t28so16701916lje.9; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 10:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YglVmBJ8cNVTkZzuc7KCApRXsDrKaIyhbYw5avR928k=; b=aNEG6CEj9491rb2yDdXALuemZW50kucsJIo2RT5X1iWA1sc8LszPYKN8ZWfq4r6hG2 /6zehKdDRUMJJAHnrA/T9SKA7DlLU3GIieRW4k9Vbx/ovwt4hiD5pDJ+9FQ7a6ARENQu xANMTzpxyYv4TMh/t1MCkCx1+tg4cHUitsR+irRvhz/axqGfonh0lk2XaH4XsNexodNe A64ivrp63tKiQ5xK46vcVPLBhEJDvOBUquOfYj6D7D62+VnEtgoA6YZ3mSm9ciBJ7I4Q MpbesZa/0eyfUe7eUwlb+IUb0F7TflBh2zTntulnDAblctJabPaHHGkZAl5jCJFcXUNm W5+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YglVmBJ8cNVTkZzuc7KCApRXsDrKaIyhbYw5avR928k=; b=XdaKG9TBGYetPksSTeFddv10cvX7B0fCNKebEu6Kjixj8QgS8zwhjqWT2wn0GCx/8j WHyqMLb+zySXfxIZtD8YOpXaZ0JTlqQbJlgrQL57jBxIjg9bK5XVYAIIG3ZubuX2Ex9K mGHjhlMa/O1A5Xj+wcJe32QW9BHi+kBsVtoCrVkXWKw2lJ9gBs0DCLyUhuR8vFxZUFKX zqea+Y1sDBzdY82WOJb3wh/kPRT+PLqETM0N7RgS6Uriji2oq6oXecvy8y1CrWa4BtMS uGfmpqxY/MrVfLT3Ej2ngjOPhXzBxCISzmcIV7TnPnhlDhQWqRBYoUTM2cX+WR83Cs0G ZuXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqZib88eYmRxTsH3t0Cd6ZfE2suH8ykEQTn1ryEtBteOTOlctn tU8LbpIifd786akheVrnEjqVYm35zkpJPK4KUl8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyb5D5/r6c76WkRPUXdorWRaRi9ckYwosGbDbDQm7M62IiXEcVWVHbtxncGIW9i56sThtqexUUmGXJSOb3DFWw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6c07:: with SMTP id h7mr8511154ljc.177.1562606278146; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 10:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:17:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000221847058d2ea0e6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/wdsK_YYb79_5Cx42Fi3S953CgQ8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
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, 08 Jul 2019 17:18:24 -0000

Hi Mirja,
thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
      Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
      estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
      be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
      [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
      for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test traffic
      depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
      the limits as provided in [RFC8085].

If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> See below.
>
> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is
> very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While
> reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in
> other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT
> and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to
> that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations
> section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
> > NEW TEXT:
> >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> >       be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
> >       particular before launching the test session.
>
>
> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you
> could have a separate sentence like:
>
> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for
> UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the
> test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided
> in RFC8085.”
>
> Or something similar…
>
> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref.
> However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be
> useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
> >
> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately
> cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you
> proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes.
> Sorry for the unconvience.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mirja,
> > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments.
> Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > > Hi authors, hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up!
> I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
> > >
> > > I believe this document should say something about network load and
> congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender
> scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could
> at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending
> should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more
> concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this
> document could be good.
> > > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section
> points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management
> components:
> > >    Because of the control
> > >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
> > >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
> > > adding the new text here:
> > >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> > >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> > >       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port
> is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you
> should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol.
> Just to make things crystal clear.
> > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence
> of Theory of  Operations section:
> > >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport
> toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
> > >
> > > Mirja
> > >
> > > P.S.:
> > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test
> protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test
> protocol/
> > > -> “an” missing
> > > GIM>> Thank you. Done.
> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07.txt.html>
> >
>
>