[spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 00:05 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 CFA9F1310BE; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AK3HmngLGfE8; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 764A412DDA3; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id a8so10857628lfi.7; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8q6u60fIcvNCH6fpR63S/2+Vc+5SNX+J8wNIb259puY=; b=PTQUQapKfDQ5YdDE5xHZYSMPx6cdramQJGvkmbQtEWzkjhw10I5v2to3k7dY/RpiVx oPWM8UafgEwkgcpwYZuXh8Sr3FasnEtrMDwUiEmkT/gOL3SbzD+cQw8YUgcSQKaU6eYM 0TAWt7xDKtSAgqqeMsyA5ciq+ZhuJhBMwaMO0IIXUFQFKbxaE1yYghXo+Y4/yGIBbkpA 759CBmZGlUo/0pwpw/4vUBV1CLAhqfmc66K9AyLvHRHctqOGi/4kJUaV9WCwdCkwD0H8 t7DvM8qinfe4DaRVfNcJHDOxMZ/2aDLp3Zr5mkmX/YKDds2oliysWpmdRxdA5nl+zXaS rY8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8q6u60fIcvNCH6fpR63S/2+Vc+5SNX+J8wNIb259puY=; b=trzd9BtWccWFPR+Hx6HpI+A1QZ1Br/PZW8tIgZtZLPnAW7JgHG3YELwCjesWcsw03R bxYHtyS3Irq/m0zymjQIKg/l1S1ubzXJnwnjNt4epfoyGs62ImSQZV0juuSKuAp4X3u6 F2nSBZXZfDnhGIchmM9l2kZ8ViDTTRwpbl0qVKtx5xLOeuTfrFjBVTHH/zx7PQe4yy3K 4b/HsjiEWIR8+gcRgm8e6gEdm29U7dKQA2usuL0j7b/wiguCL6VN3pLoAfz6eLDwjFWu 5KWBYcjBvq73tNiDb9CLGGWNA/yCsF9wQfVm7ZBv5tGbASPl3kwj3fAjuZOpTdVPUTBh TZcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVYLaOpqeIccFnFKl36WU0JSuYv5e9DWPYwsy9qAdxbbLc+uhK3 VCdq/MSTqNnq0a5LAEJg5EzXx+tEAaRmdCSu4JoSx9kC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyP9xokj+ubbQpPNgr2/+WATyXL0WxW7JkPPLA0tcQcK2S0KzI7iyzoH+h1fF3hWAe//3X0nNYIX/+JeIUItj8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5603:: with SMTP id v3mr1195878lfd.145.1551398714980; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:05:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW1JJZYQQOctSMJU8J0Fr1+k163ocg7PyJqgTTsSEU7HA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm@ietf.org, spring <spring@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fbdc60582fd29a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fG4UwCcqGAJu83epl1ayAYNlyHU>
Subject: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm
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, 01 Mar 2019 00:05:24 -0000
Dear Authors, I've read the draft and would share my comments with SPRING and IPPM WGs: - Section 3.1.1 - what is introduced in this section? Note, that in OWAMP 'O' stands for 'one-way', i.e., the receiver collects the measurement results. RFC 4656 defines Client Fetch command to retrieve, possibly by the Session-Sender, the measurement results. - note that RFCs 4656 and 5357 defined the use only of NTP format for timestamps. The use of PTP format was introduced by RFC 8186 for TWAMP only as optional, not as the default mode. The default format for TWAMP-Test is still NTP format. You may consider using the mechanism defined for TWAMP-Control to change the default to PTP format. - Section 3.1.2 - a new format for Session-Sender's TWAMP-Test message introduced. Note, that the format for Session-Sender TWAMP-Test message is the same as defined in RFC 4656. If you want to define a new TWAMP-Test optional format it first must be negotiated through TWAMP-Control protocol as has been done for all TWAMP extensions. - how the format you've proposed is different from the one proposed earlier in draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-direct-loss <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-direct-loss-01> . - Your intention, if I understand correctly, is to support direct-mode loss measurement. draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-direct-loss proposed that earlier and with proper TWAMP-Control extension. After the IPPM WG agreed to work on STAMP, authors of draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-direct-loss and STAMP agreed to work together and now the direct-mode loss measurement is part of draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv/?include_text=1> . - the last bullet in the section refers to PSID but I couldn't find a PSID field in any of the displayed formats, authenticated or not. Is it for further versions? - Section 3.1.4.1 - what is illustrated in this sub-section? That TWAMP-Test message with IP/UDP encapsulation can be carried over SR-MPLS tunnel? - Section 3.1.4.2 - same question as above. - Section 4 - is the formula to calculate the packet loss using the direct-mode measurement is worth repeating in RFC? - Section 5 - without the discussion of the impact on the Session-Sender that reflected test packets may have, I cannot agree with the assumption: The procedures for delay and loss measurement described in this document for Point-to-Point (P2P) SR-MPLS Policies are also equally applicable to the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policies. - Section 7 - OWAMP and TWAMP use HMAC-SHA1 for integrity protection. If your intent is to use HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode for OWAMP and/or TWAMP, then it may be supported as an optional extension with the proper extension in their respective control protocols. Should note that the use of HMAC-SHA-256 for STAMP was discussed at IPPM WG meeting in Bangkok and now is documented in the latest version of STAMP. Regards, Greg
- [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-sr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twam… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twam… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twam… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)