Return-Path: 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 9405AC18DBB7 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 DjYGoA6g9DiO for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94325C1840FE for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-428163f7635so51318815e9.2 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1724796574; x=1725401374; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zdIoHVh2QrDSs2MeFzOxkFnXJd0cnYumh0ITWxxXw4s=; b=OakO+7Q9mp9wsYhYFBx0rTYdNGGL2e+2m5xOrX3hhkWQ3/PXQpg2Mq11hkHuLveWxE XOj5P7hI6Y27i5cuoGOqCREkRuEMdFY1agBYh5iEBeutJVaJtlwFVGrtgKT8iXoGfAwx zTHkXTWQ9yUe2YjCGlQJ8lcxIBhPhwzksq311/WvRqZpbElxaKk2rKoFOLmW+FkEu9eb ihEM4RG6dAmXwaIp26hHX41ezDqN3CkoYCzOBThY7WJVb89n1bgBBEMV1US2252Fu01Q +mMwN84tNcC0brhRBEgMj7vRpXdg6cjPRsoMKUCXdTGlDxGERexZ3s58qcEIf39VA/ru nnzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1724796574; x=1725401374; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=zdIoHVh2QrDSs2MeFzOxkFnXJd0cnYumh0ITWxxXw4s=; b=lWmPlXCv7W2V88v135WTAs7JL+TCQ6pKnWWmUjJ1QfyDyEFKgJhFkoCAN8Cs5FHnAl Q6vpVDcUyS3emL/J8rZuW547E2dyC6Vyj4vCr+h6EzlsAixNrFsC1oE4DRglUjgEzcqL THFZI+2oLLihD93M0frfdYcJqXJdf1/oVO9aq7e/Jvu7eWSQWnLbzy06D8aOhJTPF3eU UqBkmJhB6jQKW3+IejQnhPKoIFCNwWLIcRhl3G5X5gXtS9foxhQ4mQWPWHGGT77uMTUa shmO+33OX9mgk1SnxYl8ICUl3wUbQl+UW91RkKegDQYeY9+9nO62YznYt+weqO/pHe6c n4Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx73yroxZhXpZ7k8LpsGFG8o95wMc0EWR9FsxFQoak1lRVXPDok pQhmsmi9UaTMS2TCedV/XRTsvvcROJvNFzpW5eDFPS5mR+ShqAb1y1OSrh35SmikAGhe4Y+DUp6 woJWAoJAFajceTMcBPW0qboBemTs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFxmIQM/lTWFd0X1zL1LTkUh8IDncJwJPQ+DwnnLKFBRITZEcdyu847UtoHBoSTHtIPUIaf2NBAT5whtyzubHU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:b88:b0:371:8af5:473d with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-37311840cb5mr8805534f8f.12.1724796573819; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:22 -0700 Message-ID: To: "zhangli (CE)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017af110620b17f03" Message-ID-Hash: VTN6ZGT35TPM6ZXDU5LDIDJ5RWROHY7T X-Message-ID-Hash: VTN6ZGT35TPM6ZXDU5LDIDJ5RWROHY7T X-MailFrom: gregimirsky@gmail.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" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmpls=5D_Re=3A_Comments_on_draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07?= List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --00000000000017af110620b17f03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Li, Thank you for your thoroughness and interest in this work; it is much appreciated. I've addressed that occurrence and uploaded the new version. I welcome you as a co-author and look forward to constructive cooperation. Regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:11=E2=80=AFPM zhangli (CE) wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for your quick response and update, please find my response below > tagged with Li>>. > > > > Best regards > > Li > > > > *=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:* Greg Mirsky > *=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4:* 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97= =A5 6:01 > *=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:* zhangli (CE) > *=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81:* mpls@ietf.org > *=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98:* Re: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07 > > > > Hi Li, > > thank you for your interest in the draft and thoughtful comments; much > appreciated. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>. Attached are the > working version and diff that highlights updates. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:54=E2=80=AFAM zhangli (CE) > wrote: > > 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 =E2=80=9CThi= s > document defines the Reflected Packet Path TLV=E2=80=9D. However, this do= cument > defines =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session Identifier TLV=E2=80=9D in section 3.1, so= I suppose the =E2=80=9CReflected > Packet Path TLV=E2=80=9D should be replaced with =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session I= dentifier TLV=E2=80=9D, > is it right? > > GIM>> Great catch, thank you! You are absolutely correct, it must be > changed to STAMP Session Identifier TLV. Please check in the working > version. > > > > Li >> Good work, I checked the document in the attachment, there is > another =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session Identifier TLV=E2=80=9D also need to be re= placed, it is in > the seventh paragraph below Figure1 =E2=80=9CIf the STAMP Session-Reflect= or cannot > find the path specified in the Reflected Packet Path TLV=E2=80=A6=E2=80= =9D > > > > > > 2. In section 3.1, the draft writes that =E2=80=9CReflected Packet Pat= h field > contains none, one or more sub-TLVs.=E2=80=9D, if I understand correctly,= each > sub-TLV describes a route path(such as Non-FEC Path TLV). If there is onl= y > 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? > > GIM>> A very good question, thank you. I think that in some environments, > e.g., SR-MPLS, a sub-TLV that defined for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21 > represents a segment, not the entire path. However, as you've noted, > Non-FEC Path TLV can be used as alternative to using multiple sub-TLVs. > > > > Li>> Great, I think I am clear on this point now. The =E2=80=9CReflected = Packet > Path field=E2=80=9D is used to describe one reflected path, if the sub-TL= V > represents a segment, then this =E2=80=9Cfield=E2=80=9D could contains on= e or more > sub-TLVs, if the sub-TLV represents a path(Non-FEC Path TLV), then this > =E2=80=9Cfield=E2=80=9D Should just contain one sub-TLV. Do I understand = correctly? > > > > Best regards > > > > Li > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: <<internet-drafts@ietf.org>> > > Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:52=E2=80=AFPM > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.txt > > To: Greg Mirsky <<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 Lab= el > > 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=3Ddraft-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 > > --00000000000017af110620b17f03 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Li,
Thank you for your thoroughness and interest in= this work; it is much appreciated. I've addressed that occurrence and = uploaded the new version. I welcome you as a co-author and look forward to = constructive cooperation.

Regards,
Greg<= /div>

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:11=E2=80=AFPM zhangli (CE) <zhangli344@huawei.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

Hi Greg,

=C2=A0

Thanks for your quick response and update, please find my respon= se below tagged with Li>>.

=C2=A0

Best regards

Li

=C2=A0

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
=E5= =8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4:= 2024= =E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5 6:01
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: zhangli (CE) <zhangli344@huawei.com>
=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: mpls@ietf.org
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: Comments on draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07

=C2=A0

Hi Li,

thank you for your interest in = the draft and thoughtful comments; much appreciated. Please find my notes b= elow tagged GIM>>. Attached are the working version and diff that hig= hlights=C2=A0updates.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Greg

=C2=A0

Hi Greg,

=C2=A0

I am interested in this draft a= nd I just read it, here are my comments.

=C2=A0

1.=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 In the second paragraph of introduction, it writes the =E2=80=9C= This document defines the Reflected Packet Path TLV=E2=80=9D. However, this document defines =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session Identifier TLV=E2= =80=9D in section 3.1, so I suppose the =E2=80=9CReflected Packet Path TLV=E2=80= =9D should be replaced with =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session Identifier TLV=E2= =80=9D, is it right?

GIM>> Great catch, thank = you! You are absolutely correct, it must be changed to STAMP Session Identi= fier TLV. Please check in the working version.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Li >> Good work, I checked the document in the attachment,= there is another =E2=80=9CSTAMP Session Identifier TLV=E2=80=9D also need to be replaced, it is in the seventh paragraph below Figure1 =E2= =80=9CIf the STAMP Session-Reflector cannot find the path specified in the = Reflected Packet Path TLV=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

2.=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 In section 3.1, the draft writes that =E2=80=9C= Reflected Packet Path field contains none, o= ne or more sub-TLVs.=E2=80=9D, 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 ar= e multiple reflected path, how should the Session-Reflector do? Reflect the reflected-test packet on all the pat= hs?

GIM>> A very good questio= n, thank you. I think that in some environments, e.g., SR-MPLS, a sub-TLV t= hat defined=C2=A0for=C2=A0TLV Types 1, 16, and 21 represents a segment, not= the entire path. However, as you've noted, Non-FEC Path TLV can be used as alternative to using multiple sub-TLVs.<= /u>

=C2=A0

Li>> Great, I think I am clear on this point now. The =E2= =80=9CReflected Packet Path field=E2=80=9D is used to describe one reflecte= d path, if the sub-TLV represents a segment, then this =E2=80=9Cfield=E2=80= =9D could contains one or more sub-TLVs, if the sub-TLV represents a path(Non-FEC Path TLV), = then this =E2=80=9Cfield=E2=80=9D Should just contain one sub-TLV. Do I und= erstand correctly?

=C2=A0

Best regards

=C2=A0

Li

=C2=A0

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <=
;internet-drafts@ietf.org>=

Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:52=E2=80=AFPM=

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky=
-mpls-stamp-07.txt
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>=

=C2=A0
=C2=A0
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-mirsky-mpls-=
stamp-07.txt has been

successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted t=
o the


IETF repository.


=C2=A0


Name:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 draft-mirsky-mpls-st=
amp


Revision: 07=



Title:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Simple Two-way Active Mea=
surement Protocol (STAMP) for MPLS Label=



Switched Paths (LSPs)<=
u>


Date:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 2024-03-25


Group:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Individual Submission


Pages:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 9


URL:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/dr=
aft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.txt<=
u>


Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-mpls-sta=
mp/


HTML:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0<=
span style=3D"color:rgb(51,122,183)">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-=
mirsky-mpls-stamp-07.html<=
/u>


HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-stam=
p


Diff:


https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-mirsky-mpls=
-stamp-07


=C2=A0


Abstract:


=C2=A0


=C2=A0=C2=A0 Simple Two-way Active Measurement Pro=
tocol (STAMP), defined in RFC


=C2=A0=C2=A0 8762 and RFC 8972, is expected to be =
able to monitor the performance


=C2=A0=C2=A0 of paths between systems that use a w=
ide variety of encapsulations.


=C2=A0=C2=A0 This document defines encapsulation a=
nd bootstrapping of a STAMP test<=
/span>


=C2=A0=C2=A0 session over an MPLS Label Switched P=
ath.


=C2=A0


=C2=A0


=C2=A0


The IETF Secretariat
--00000000000017af110620b17f03--