Re: [ippm] RFC 4656 on use of OWAMP-Control and relationship with OWAMP-Test

Hi Mahesh,
if one uses TWAMP-Control model defined in draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang,
then, according to Figure 2, there's no need neither for container
session-sender, nor for container session-reflector. In this case
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector have only operational state data as
all configuration from Control-Client and Server communicated to them over
proprietary APIs. If one wants to instantiate TWAMP test session using YANG
model from draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang, then there will be several issues
with parameters referring to a Control-Client. Hence I propose to work
together to use YANG model from draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang as
TWAMP-Test for the second scenario.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> RFC 5357 defines both TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test and how they work
> together. The YANG module, which is based on the RFC, therefore models
> both. We see no reason to split the model. As said before, there is no
> requirement that you have to implement/use the entire model.
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mahesh,
> I think that there could be two models - TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test. I
> don't see any good reason to have TWAMP-Test configuration model as part of
> TWAMP-Control. In fact, having it there makes control of a test session
> ambiguous as only one of them must be used to configure a test session.
> TWAMP-Control model only needs test session operational state model and it
> should use the one defined in TWAMP-Test model.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
> mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Besides, from a YANG modeling perspective, the model has to model both
>> the Control and Test part. Implementations that choose not to use Control
>> can choose not to do so.
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:07 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m sorry Roni, but that’s exactly what this phrase,
>> “...an incremental path to adopting TWAMP…”  means,
>> suggesting a multi-step process to achieve a full TWAMP
>> implementation.
>>
>> The sentence in the body sets the context for Appendix I.
>> It says the Appendix describes building TWAMP-Test **first**.
>> Clearly, TWAMP-Test is not the final step!
>>
>> Al
>>
>> *From:* Ron Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 6:54 PM
>> *To:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> *Cc:* Mahesh Jethanandani; ippm@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] RFC 4656 on use of OWAMP-Control and relationship
>> with OWAMP-Test
>>
>> Al,
>> The last part of your response  "* then implementing the rest of TWAMP
>> (TWAMP-Control)." is not there. This is why I said that it does not say
>> that you SHOULD implement the control protocol, you can stop after
>> implmenting the test protocol.*
>> *Roni*
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:39 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com>
>> wrote:
>> Roni, in-line:
>>
>> *From:* Ron Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:54 PM
>> *To:* Mahesh Jethanandani
>> *Cc:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); ippm@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] RFC 4656 on use of OWAMP-Control and relationship
>> with OWAMP-Test
>>
>> Hi,
>> I read both RFC5357 and RFC 4656 and even though they say that TWAMP
>> consist of two protocol it never says that  both MUST be used anywhere in
>> the document. The document does not have a lot of normative text.
>>
>> Section 5 of RFC5357 is an example and not a requirement and even the
>> text that was mentioned in the IPPM session
>>
>> "Appendix I
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5357-23appendix-2DI&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=8rzEqXJ9uFZvh3uOA5yH4SAy8bbtiIWWkkC6E6u9GxE&s=huzSTziCOa3hcY2o_C07JqZnWLM-OlUvRsWjy9vEZvw&e=>
>>  provides an example for purely informational purposes. It
>>
>>    suggests an incremental path to adopting TWAMP, by implementing the
>>
>>    TWAMP-Test protocol first."
>>
>>
>>
>> Does not say that using TWAMP-Test without the control protocol SHOULD NOT be used.
>>
>> *[ACM] *
>>
>> *Of course it doesn’t! It says Appendix I describes a *
>>
>> *the first step of one process of standards-track TWAMP *
>>
>> *implementation, by starting with TWAMP-light, then *
>>
>> *implementing the rest of TWAMP (TWAMP-Control).*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Al*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Roni Even
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> And the part that you forgot to quote that followed in Section 1.1 is:
>>
>>
>> TWAMP-
>>
>>    Control is used to initiate, start, and stop test sessions, whereas
>>
>>    TWAMP-Test is used to exchange test packets between two TWAMP
>>
>>    entities.
>>
>>
>> There is clearly a precedence for TWAMP-Control to be a entity by itself
>> and very much part of the TWAMP protocol.
>>
>> If this is this rational for your comments on the YANG model, then I fail
>> to see RFC 5357 backing your claim that TWAMP-control is optional.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:08 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> All ambiguity falls away in the context of
>> the complete TWAMP document, which says:
>>
>>    This example eliminates the need for the TWAMP-Control protocol, and
>>    assumes that the Session-Reflector is configured and communicates its
>>    configuration with the Server through non-standard means.
>>
>> The example referred to above is not TWAMP;
>> it is the option you describe, but it is
>> called **TWAMP light**.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> *From:* ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org <ippm-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 3:16 PM
>> *To:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> *Cc:* ippm@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] RFC 4656 on use of OWAMP-Control and relationship
>> with OWAMP-Test
>>
>> Hi Al,
>> then, in my opinion, there's certain ambiguity in the text of RFC 4656
>> and in RFC 5357 as well because of the following statement in the very
>> first sentence of section 1.1 RFC 5357:
>>
>>    Similar to OWAMP [RFC4656 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc4656&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GYMy1_sqf9mj6S0ZH3B8vNmqe0Dhjo7de61Qb0R_PEk&s=xSkfFW5jj6YPbqpcfnAlahroG7DXdI0xfiFASWYpQzU&e=>], TWAMP consists of two inter-related
>>
>>    protocols: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test.  The relationship of these
>>
>>    protocols is as defined in Section 1.1 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5357-23section-2D1.1&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GYMy1_sqf9mj6S0ZH3B8vNmqe0Dhjo7de61Qb0R_PEk&s=Ll0h5X4oSwXXl4G_FY2cRS-EuQtOlW7UBieZuuUVGno&e=> of OWAMP [RFC4656 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc4656&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GYMy1_sqf9mj6S0ZH3B8vNmqe0Dhjo7de61Qb0R_PEk&s=xSkfFW5jj6YPbqpcfnAlahroG7DXdI0xfiFASWYpQzU&e=>].
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:24 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com>
>> wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> If we had meant RFC 2119 “MAY” or “OPTIONAL” (the term
>> you used today when presenting) we would have used the
>> RFC 2119 term in the text.
>>
>> There are plenty of other examples where both Control
>> and Test protocols are taken as “the full TWAMP”.
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> *From:* ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 12:29 PM
>> *To:* ippm@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [ippm] RFC 4656 on use of OWAMP-Control and relationship with
>> OWAMP-Test
>>
>> Dear All,
>> the second paragraph in section 1.1 of RFC 4656 states the following:
>>
>>    Although OWAMP-Test may be used in conjunction with a control
>>
>>    protocol other than OWAMP-Control, the authors have deliberately
>>
>>    chosen to include both protocols in the same RFC to encourage the
>>
>>    implementation and deployment of OWAMP-Control as a common
>>
>>    denominator control protocol for one-way active measurements.
>>
>>
>>
>> I interpret "may be used" as MAY per RFC 2119. Please let me know if this should not be the case.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=8rzEqXJ9uFZvh3uOA5yH4SAy8bbtiIWWkkC6E6u9GxE&s=ZMtRtQf7_uEvBWTI8FH_yxzn-HO1WhKzzf08n89kqxs&e=>
>>
>>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=8rzEqXJ9uFZvh3uOA5yH4SAy8bbtiIWWkkC6E6u9GxE&s=ZMtRtQf7_uEvBWTI8FH_yxzn-HO1WhKzzf08n89kqxs&e=>
>>
>>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>>
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>
>
>
>