[mpls] Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07
"zhangli (CE)" <zhangli344@huawei.com> Wed, 21 August 2024 08:54 UTC
Return-Path: <zhangli344@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9159C151084 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lg_kdC2aDFON for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A1CC15106A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Wpg6y3pDlz687wh; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:51:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.78]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14F4140680; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:54:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemf500008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.156) by lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:54:35 +0100
Received: from dggpemm100019.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.251) by dggpemf500008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:54:34 +0800
Received: from dggpemm100019.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.251]) by dggpemm100019.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.251]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:54:34 +0800
From: "zhangli (CE)" <zhangli344@huawei.com>
To: "gregimirsky@gmail.com" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07
Thread-Index: Adrzp7fZ+5HczWm7QvS07yam0Dw04A==
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 08:54:34 +0000
Message-ID: <7e6bb94c74274f3aa304564ce0a55d6d@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.51]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7e6bb94c74274f3aa304564ce0a55d6dhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: NW65QBIKLEPRM7QEBCAP6HUWBDJTG2O2
X-Message-ID-Hash: NW65QBIKLEPRM7QEBCAP6HUWBDJTG2O2
X-MailFrom: zhangli344@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_vMyVdhe4FYkdeL7PJzmIzVLrK4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Greg, I am interested in this draft and I just read it, here are my comments. 1. In the second paragraph of introduction, it writes the “This document defines the Reflected Packet Path TLV”. However, this document defines “STAMP Session Identifier TLV” in section 3.1, so I suppose the “Reflected Packet Path TLV” should be replaced with “STAMP Session Identifier TLV”, is it right? 2. In section 3.1, the draft writes that “Reflected Packet Path field contains none, one or more sub-TLVs.”, if I understand correctly, each sub-TLV describes a route path(such as Non-FEC Path TLV). If there is only one reflected path specified, the Session-Reflector will reflect the test packet along the specific path. If there are multiple reflected path, how should the Session-Reflector do? Reflect the reflected-test packet on all the paths? Best regards Li ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org><mailto:<internet-drafts@ietf.org>> Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:52 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.txt To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com><mailto:<gregimirsky@gmail.com>> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp Revision: 07 Title: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Date: 2024-03-25 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 9 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp/ HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.html HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 Abstract: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), defined in RFC 8762 and RFC 8972, is expected to be able to monitor the performance of paths between systems that use a wide variety of encapsulations. This document defines encapsulation and bootstrapping of a STAMP test session over an MPLS Label Switched Path. The IETF Secretariat
- [mpls] Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 zhangli (CE)
- [mpls] Re: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 zhangli (CE)
- [mpls] Re: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 Greg Mirsky
- [mpls] Re: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 Greg Mirsky