[ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 04 September 2019 13:54 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71606120100; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 06:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, ippm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <156760524845.22816.16339950342338392164.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:54:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/zjxYxX61NvgfaQ4WN3kkxq0ubOg>
Subject: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 13:54:09 -0000
Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two very much discussing discusses. However, I would really like to hear the answer to these concerns before clearing. 1. Section 4.3: Is the HMAC field size of 16 bytes hard coded? If there ever would exist a need to deploy another integrity solution, even if the actual algorithm used to construct the tag can be agreed by the management, there appear to exist a hard look in to use 16-byte tags. Have this issue been considered? 2. Section 6: The possible impact of the STAMP test packets on the network MUST be thoroughly analyzed, and the use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by all users on the network before starting the STAMP test session. I assume some potential issues are know, shouldn't they really be listed here in the security consideration to further motivate why the analysis needs to happen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Section 4: Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed by all users of the network. Is the above sentence missing to list an important assumption? Is the assumption that by using the registred destination port an operator that sees to much STAMP traffic can simply filter it out and that way deal with the traffic, something which is not possible when using an locally decided port? If that is the case, this assumption should probably be noted. 2. Section 3 and 4, and 4.1.1: What is a STAMP Session? Is that a measurment session between one specific and sender and a specific reflector for a time duration? The defenition of the session do matter if one intended to enable a single sender to use multiple reflectors, and if that can be a single session or always multiple indepdendent ones. Would appreciate a definition what a session is. If it is possible to send STAMP traffic using a multicast or broadcast address should be made explicit. 3. Section 4.1.1.: Timestamp is eight octets long field. STAMP node MUST support Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format [RFC5905], the format used in [RFC5357]. STAMP node MAY support IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol truncated 64-bit timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008], the format used in [RFC8186]. Is the clock source here something that may be relevant or simply information the management functions should capture. I think there is a similar issue to that of RTP faced when it comes to understand what the timestamp actually represent and thus be used correctly. RTP clock source specification is RFC 7273 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7273/) 4. Section 4.1: Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4. The above text implies some potential for UDP payload size variability for the STAMP packets. However, the actual definition appear to have fixed sizes. Can you please clarify if I have missed something that enables the STAMP packet to have variable size?
- [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-i… Greg Mirsky