Re: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt

Hi Rakesh,
thank you for bringing this scenario to the discussion. I think that it
makes sense to give precedence to the control code. I will work on the text
to make that clear.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:15 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for sharing the updates.
> RFC 9503 (previously draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm) defines control code with
> - No Reply Requested. It may intersect with the following text in this
> draft in Section 2:
>
> If the value of the Number of the Reflected Packets equals zero, then the
> Session-Reflector MUST NOT send a reflected packet. Processing of the
> received STAMP test packet with the Reflected Test Packet Control TLV, in
> which the value of the Number of the Reflected Packets equals zero, is
> according to the local nodal policy. The received STAMP test packet is
> discarded if no policy to handle these cases is configured on the node.
>
> Maybe the draft can clarify the expected behavior e.g. number of reflected
> packets is non-zero but control code requests do not reply. Maybe control
> code takes precedence??
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:57 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> we've updated our proposal for the STAMP extension, Reflected Test Packet
>> Control TLV, and its applicability for rate measurement as well as
>> performance measurements in the multicast network. The authors always
>> welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions. Looking forward to
>> presenting and discussing this work at the IPPM session in Brisbane.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg (on behalf of the authors)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:40 AM
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
>> To: Ernesto Ruffini <eruffini@outsys.org>, Greg Mirsky <
>> gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Henrik Nydell <hnydell@cisco.com>, Richard Foote
>> <footer.foote@nokia.com>
>>
>>
>> A new version of Internet-Draft
>> draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt has
>> been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:     draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
>> Revision: 03
>> Title:    Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Packets in STAMP
>> Date:     2024-02-06
>> Group:    Individual Submission
>> Pages:    11
>> URL:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.txt
>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/
>> HTML:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03.html
>> HTMLized:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
>> Diff:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-03
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>>    This document describes an optional extension to a Simple Two-way
>>    Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) that enables the use of STAMP
>>    test and reflected packets of variable length during a single STAMP
>>    test session.  In some use cases, the use of asymmetrical test
>>    packets allow for the creation of more realistic flows of test
>>    packets and, thus, a closer approximation between active performance
>>    measurements and conditions experienced by the monitored application.
>>
>>    Also, the document includes an analysis of challenges related to
>>    performance monitoring in a multicast network.  It defines procedures
>>    and STAMP extensions to achieve more efficient measurements with a
>>    lesser impact on a network.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>