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

gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Fri, 11 June 2021 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EC83A2CA3; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 00:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DwF3IbYnM1dx; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 00:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxus.zteusa.com (mxus.zteusa.com [4.14.134.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0CD23A2CA4; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 00:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-us.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.36.11.29]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id DFB5D95CD38ACE800C43; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:18:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.36.9.143]) by mse-us.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 15B7IlHo023540; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:18:47 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
Received: from mapi (mgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:18:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:18:47 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af960c30e57a7271506
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202106111518474556174@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB42066A2630749C71112DA3A9C2389@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: MN2PR13MB42066A2630749C71112DA3A9C2389@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
To: <jguichar@futurewei.com>
Cc: <spring@ietf.org>, <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-us.zte.com.cn 15B7IlHo023540
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ag8nynMXzWPLuEp5TvbESS2vI0Y>
Subject: Re: [spring] =?utf-8?q?WG_Adoption_Call_for_https=3A//www=2Eietf=2Eo?= =?utf-8?q?rg/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06=2Etxt?=
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:18:57 -0000

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. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
What is the benefit of using the inner IP Header as presented in Figure 4?
As for Figure 2, I propose changing the reference to Section 3 of RFC 8792 (Figure 2).
As for Figure 4, I have a question about the inner IP header in Figure 7.
Can you point to the definition (or provide it) of the loopback mode?
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?
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?
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?
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.
The same question for the use case described in the second paragraph.
Two previous questions are also applicable to Section 4.4.2.
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?
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.
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?
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?


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: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
www.zte.com.cn
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: JamesGuichard
To: spring@ietf.org;
CC: spring-chairs@ietf.org;
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
spring@ietf.org
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