Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

In loopback mode, either it is STAMP (as in this draft) or BFD (as in draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo), the reflector simply loops the test packet back in forwarding and does not participate in test. In both cases, I hope you agree that the loopback mode is useful as it removes the dependency on the reflector.

The loopback mode does require specification on the sender, e.g. how the test packet is encapsulated in SR, test packet is transmitted as well as how the received test packet is processed. The metrics are computed differently than the one-way or two-way modes, etc.

The loopback mode does belong to the same specification where all measurement modes are described, to fully understand the behaviours of the sender and reflector in each mode. For example, it can also help an operator make an informed decision on which mode to enable in the network after reading the standard.

Thanks,
Rakesh


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 9:34 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
Hi Rakesh,
I'm top-posting to share my understanding of why draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo is on the Standards track. As you've noted, draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo describes the use of BFD Echo between a BFD system and a system that might not support BFD. But RFC 5880 excludes such use cases by requiring that a BFD Echo be transmitted only after the BFD session is in the Upstate. In other words, BFD peers must bring the session by exchanging BFD control messages to the Upstate, and only after that, any system can transmit a BFD Echo packet. draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo will update RFC 5880 in that, and that is why, as I understand it, the draft is on the Standards Track, not because it defines behavior entirely internal for the sender of a BFD Echo. As I have pointed, this draft is not updating STAMP, and the loopback mode is not affecting the Session-Reflector. I don't see that including the description of one of the possible implementations in the document adds value as ther
 e is no interoperability to be defined.

Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
E: [e-mail]
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn>
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: RakeshGandhi(rgandhi)
To: gregory mirsky10211915;
CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];
Date: 2021/06/23 15:59
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Hi Greg,
Many thanks for your review comments. Please see replies inline with <RG3>…
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 4:57 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
Hi Rakesh,
thank you for your consideration. Please find my follow-up notes in-lined under the GIM2>> tag.
Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部   Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
E: [e-mail]
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn>
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: RakeshGandhi(rgandhi)
To: gregory mirsky10211915;
CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];
Date: 2021/06/21 12:44
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Hi Greg,
Many thanks for your review comments and suggestions.
Please see replies inline with <RG2>…
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 10:57 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[spring] WG Adoption Call for  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
Hi Rakesh,
thank you for responding to my comments. I've added follow-up notes in-line tagged GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部    Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
E: [e-mail]
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn>
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: RakeshGandhi(rgandhi)
To: gregory mirsky10211915;[e-mail];
CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];
Date: 2021/06/16 12:50
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Hi Greg,
Many thanks for your review comments and suggestions.
Please see replies inline with <RG>…
From: spring <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 at 3:19 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
Dear Authors, et al.,
I've read the draft. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of comments from earlier discussions. The document is well-written and I agree with it being on the Informational track.
<RG> Many thanks.
I've several questions and much appreciate it if you help me to understand.
In the example of a STAMP test packet (Figure 2) the text suggests that IPv4 addresses can be used as the source and destination. In which case you see IPv4 address family should be used in the SR environment?
<RG> Figure 2 shows both IPv4 and IPv6 address family and they are the addresses of the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector as defined in STAMP.  The STAMP packet is further encapsulated with an SR-MPLS/SRv6 header depending on SR-MPLS  Policy or SRv6 Policy   being measured.
GIM>> Can you please clarify for me SRv6 scenario. The authors of the draft propose to encapsulate a STAMP packet, from a Session-Sender or Session-Reflector, in IP/UDP and then, on top of that, add another IPv6 encapsulation with SRH? Any reason why not simply   add the SRH to a STAMP packet encapsulated in IPv6?
<RG2> When using the SIDs of the forward path in SRH, the top IPv6/SRH is added to bring the test packet to the Session-Reflector from the Session-Sender. In loopback mode, the bottom IPv6 header is used to bring  the test packet back from the Session-Reflector  to the Session-Sender. The bottom IPv6 header is not required when using SIDs of both forward + reverse paths in SRH.
GIM2>> Thank you for the clarification. If I understand it correctly, in the loopback mode the STAMP Session-Reflector function is not involved in processing the STAMP test packet. If that is the case, what is the value of including the description of the loopback  mode in the draft?
<RG3> This is similar to BFD in loopback mode as defined in draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-02.txt, where the remote side does not support BFD protocol for example, and simply loops back the packet. It is also  a Standards-track document.
I suggest changing the reference in Figure 2 from Section 4.2 of RFC 8762 to Section 3 of RFC 8972 (Figure 1). Thus the STAMP Session Identifier will be supported in SR environments and implementations can use the value of the field to simplify demultiplexing    STAMP test sessions.
<RG> Thanks for the suggestion, agree to update it in the next revision.
I couldn't understand the last sentence in Section 4.1.1:
An IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or IPv6
loopback address ::1/128 [RFC4291] must not be used to IP route test
packets in a network.
How this requirement (if that is the requirement, then s/must not/MUST NOT/ might be needed), is related to RFC 1801 that states that:
A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any
packet that has a destination address on network 127.
<RG> Agree to remove this sentence in the next revision.
GIM>> Thank you, looking forward to the next version.
Also, it appears that only IP encapsulation is explained in Section 4.1.1. Since the draft includes in its scope both SRv6 and SR-MPLS, I wonder in what case IPv4 addressing will be used? It seems that rather than including IPv4, the section should document    the encapsulation of a STAMP test packet over an MPLS link.
<RG> It is not necessary to add SR encapsulate for sending test packets for links.
<RG> However, we could add text to state
“SR encapsulation (e.g. adjacency SID of the link) can be added for transmitting the test packets for links.”
Section 4.1.2 also refers to IPv4 address family being used by a Session-Sender and SR Policy. What could be the use case for IPv4 in SR?
<RG> As mentioned above, RFC 8762 base STAMP packets carry IP/UDP header.
GIM>> I disagree. RFC 8762 does not require STAMP test packet use IP/UDP encapsulation. It states that if STAMP test message is enapculated in IP/UDP, then it may use destination port 862 for a Session-Sender test packets. Other encapsulations are outside the   scope of RFC 8762. If we consider MPLS, then, in addition to using IP/UDP, a new ACH type can be used to carry STAMP messages.
The IP address family in the base STAMP test packet can be IPv4 or IPv6 address of the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector. In SR, the STAMP packets are further  encapsulated with an SR header.
<RG2> The scope of this draft is IP/UDP header based STAMP test packets. We are planning to publish a new draft in MPLS WG to define a new ACH Type.
GIM2>> I think that it is helpful to explicitly state the scope of the document. What do you think?
<RG3> Ok to add.
GIM>> As noted earlier, I'm interested in SRv6 scenario. Does it add the whole IP/UDP encapsulation or only SRH?
What is the benefit of using the inner IP Header as presented in Figure 4?
<RG2> Please see the reply at the top.
GIM2>> Thank you for clarifying this in your response. I'm looking forward to the updated version of the draft to clearly state that in the document.
<RG> The inner IP header is useful in loopback mode, the outer header is responsible for transmitting the test packet to the Session-Reflector. The Session-Reflector will decap SRv6 tunnel header and forward the test packet back to the  Session-Sender according   to the inner header.
GIM>> I have to admit that I'm confused by your explanation. As I understand the loopback mode, a test packet is not decapsulated by the Session-Reflector. The Session-Reflector, I assume, acts as a segment end-point but the SR policy brings the test packet   all the way back to the Session-Sender. If that is how the loopback mode is expected to perform, I believe that my original question stil stands.
<RG2> Please see the reply at the top.
<RG> We can update this in the next revision.
As for Figure 2, I propose changing the reference to Section 3 of RFC 8792 (Figure 2).
<RG> We are ok to update it in the next revision.
As for Figure 4, I have a question about the inner IP header in Figure 7.
<RG> It is not necessary. We can update in the next revision.
Can you point to the definition (or provide it) of the loopback mode?
<RG> In this (informational) draft, it is defined for SR networks in Section 4.2.3.
GIM>> What is observable by a Session-Reflector behavior when a Session-Sender uses the loopback mode? As I understand it, there's none. The Session-Reflector is not participating in a test in the loopback mode. If that is the case, there's no interworking,   interoperability and, as a result, nothing to document.
<RG2> Right, the Session-Reflector is not participating in the loopback mode test. This draft is defining the procedure on how to do loopback mode.
GIM2>> I think that the draft does not define SR encapsulation, whether SR-MPLS or SRv6. Since the test packet is processed by the sender, there's no apparent need in describing how the sender manipulates the packet before transmitting or after receiving it.  That is entirely implementation specific and not observable from an outside the system.
<RG3> Please see reply above for BFD in loopback mode draft: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-02.txt, which is a standards-track document.

The second paragraph of Section 4.2.3 suggests that the Session-Sender is expected to receive a self-addressed STAMP test packet. Can you point out the text in RFC 8762 that defines the base STAMP functionality on which this model is based?
<RG> In this (informational) draft, it is defined for SR networks in Section 4.2.3.
In the same paragraph, the draft states:
The Session-Sender sets the Reflector UDP port that it uses to receive the test packet.
Can you clarify the definition of the Reflector UDP port?
<RG> It is destination UDP port in the Session-Sender test packet. We are ok to update in the next revision.
GIM>> Could that be UDP port 862, as that is the one well-known port allocated for Session-Sender transmitted test packets?
<RG2> This is the source port Session-Sender uses.
GIM2>> I think that is implentation-specific. For example, the Session-Sender might use a special UDP port for self-addressed packets. Would you agree? That is another reason, in my opinion, that there's no value in descrbing the loopback mode in the document.
<RG3> Following text is added in the revised draft, which should cover the case.
“The STAMP Session-Sender sets the Destination UDP port to the UDP port it uses to receive the reply STAMP test packets.”

The third paragraph, as I understand it, assumes that the Session-Sender does not use some fields to calculate performance metrics. I couldn't find such a mode is described in RFC 8762. Does this draft propose changes to the RFC 8762?
<RG> This informational draft explains various delay metrics in SR. It does not change RFC 8762.
GIM>> Informational drafts, to the best of my understanding, document how techniques defined in Standard-track RFCs can be used, can work together. This document does introduce something that does not exists, is not described in RFC 8762 or RFC 8962.
<RG2> So it looks like the document should be Standards-track.
GIM2>> Not at all. My point is quite clear - the loopback mode, as described in the draft, is not part of STAMP, does not change STAMP and is has no observable from the outside behavior. Thus, it must be removed from the document as not adding any value for  a developer.
<RG3> Please see reply above for BFD in loopback mode draft: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-02.txt, which is a standards-track document.

I've got confused by the rules listed for setting TTL in Section 4.4.1. For example, according to the rule in the third paragraph, TTL must be set to 1 for the STAMP measurement over a link. But that seems like the opposite to what is required in RFC 5082 The    Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM). I hope you can share why TTL must be set to 1 in this case.
<RG> As described in Section 4.3 of [RFC8029], for IP address 127/8 case with using TTL=1, it is to ensure that the test packet does not get incorrectly IP routed to more than one IP hop and provide incorrect measurement.
GIM>> I believe that the use of loopback as destination address from rouing IP packet. On the other hand, using TTL/Hop Count == 1 does not allow for GTSM being used and, at least in theory, creates an attack vector for DoS. The tunnel is a single hop for the   encapsulated STAMP packet. Why not use GTSM?
<RG2> We are Ok to update in the next revision.
GIM2>> I am looking forward to reading the updated version.
The same question for the use case described in the second paragraph.
<RG> Please see above.
Two previous questions are also applicable to Section 4.4.2.
<RG> Please see above.
Section 5, as I understand it, suggests that all modes of operation described in Section 4 can be used to measure packet loss. At the same time, in Section 4.2.3. Loopback Measurement Mode is noted (or required) that the Session-Sender sets the value of the    Session-Sender Sequence Number field to zero. If that is the case, how the packet loss is calculated in the loopback mode?
<RG> Session-Sender has the knowledge about this mode. Session-Sender can set the Session-Sender Sequence Number to Sequence Number to avoid any confusion. We are ok to update it in the next revision.
Also, Section 5 provides a very intriguing statement:
This method can be used for inferred packet loss measurement,
however, it does not provide accurate data packet loss metric.
Do you have more information, perhaps a reference to a study or RFC, to support this statement? Following the logic of that statement, if packet loss measured using STAMP is not accurate, wouldn't measured packet delay also be not accurate? It seems that, if    authors want to maintain this position, the definition of the accuracy of the measurement must be introduced.
<RG> RFC 6374 has good discussions on the two loss measurement modes. We are ok to update the text as follows to align with RFC 6374.
This method can be used for inferred packet loss measurement,
however, it provides only approximate view of the data packet loss.
I feel that the suggestion to variate IPv4 address in measuring performance metrics in the SR-MPLS environment is somewhat outdated and is not in step with RFCs 6790 and 8662. Why choosing addresses from the 127/8 range is preferred to using the Entropy label    which is more likely to be used on the data traffic?
<RG> Yes, we can add following text in the next update:
Forwarding plane has various hashing functions available to forward
packets on specific ECMP paths.  For SR-MPLS Policy, sweeping of
entropy label [RFC6790] values can be used in Session-Sender test packets
and Session-Reflector test packets
to take advantage of the hashing function in forwarding
plane to influence the ECMP path taken by them.
I have another question on the last sentence of Section 8:
The STAMP Session-Reflector must not transmit reply test packet if it is
not the intended destination node in the "Destination Node Address"
TLV [I-D.gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm].
How does this requirement work in the case of a P2MP SR policy? And which address would be used in the Destination Node Address TLV in that case?
<RG> As specified in [draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00],  the Destination Node Address TLV is applicable to P2P SR Policy.
GIM>> Does that mean that any SR node can send STAMP test packet to the Session-Reflector without the Destination Address TLV and receive the reflected packet? Wouldn't that be a major security concern?
<RG2> This is addressed in Section 5, Security Section of [draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00].  We are adding following in the next update:
“The Security Considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm]
are also equally applicable to the procedures defined in this document.”
GIM2>> I couldn't find the lack of the Destination Address TLV in the Session-Sender test packet discussed in the Security Conciderations section of  ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm. Section 3 of that draft that defines the TLV notes that it is optional. And that raises  a valid question, if the Destination Address TLV is not present, how the Session-Reflector can verify that it is indeed the intended destination of the STAMP test packet?
<RG3> Ok to make the Destination TLV a MUST.
Thanks,
Rakesh

Thanks,
Rakesh
We can add the sentence in this draft as well in the next update.
Thanks,
Rakesh
I believe that while some questions are non-blocking and can be addressed at a later time, there is a significant number of technical substantive issues that must be resolved before the adoption of this draft.
I am looking forward to the Authors' feedback.
Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部     Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
E: [e-mail]
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn>
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: JamesGuichard
To: [e-mail];
CC: [e-mail];
Date: 2021/06/07 05:34
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for    https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Dear WG:
The IPPM WG has adopted    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00  as a WG document. In a previous communication (December 16th 2020), the SPRING chairs decided not to adopt https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt into the WG until its companion document was accepted by the IPPM WG. This has now happened and  therefore    we feel it is now time to revisit the WG adoption of the SPRING document.
Due to the lapse of several months since the initial WG adoption call, the chairs would like to start another 2-week WG adoption call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt, ending June 21st 2021.
After review of the SPRING document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption to the mailing list. Please also provide comments/reasons for that support (or lack thereof) as silence will not be considered as consent.
Thanks!
Jim, Joel & Bruno