[Last-Call] Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-25 ietf last call Genart review

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Stewart for the Gen-ART review.

Please see a reply inline with <RG>...

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 8:07 AM Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr
> Title: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for
> Reflecting STAMP Packet IP Headers Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review result:
> Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-??
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2026-10-27
> IETF LC End Date: 2026-10-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Apologies that this slipped through the cracks and is late. From a
> Genart perspective it is fine, although I did pick up one minor point on
> timing
> accuracy in passing,
>
> Major issues:none
>
> Minor issues:none
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>  The computation of the
>    one-way delay metric requires the clocks on the Session-Sender and
>    Session-Reflector to be synchronized, e.g., using PTPv2 [IEEE1588] or
>    NTPv4 [RFC5905].
>
> SB> Almost certainly good enough for these purposes, but path asymmetry
> also
> affects TWTT such as 1588 (unless engineered out) and NTP (hard to engineer
> out). If you want real accuracy suggest use of local GNSS time reference.
>


<RG> Thanks for the suggestion. As this draft has completed the IESG
review, we may consider adding the suggestion in a future STAMP document.

Thanks,
Rakesh (for authors)





>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>