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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Thu, 24 June 2021 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 BE0FD3A1CC1; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 s2VHTwzhfMVR; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (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 95F323A1CC0; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id e20so3545743pgg.0; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uJJG29GYWEf+9guOqlcztDYy9Ql7JJKIb8yeBOdqZM8=; b=u0Ong0Ul2SAujIsfssbkl3HYIGBQCpA1bFtwW9yLVdfKnIkDrjyzR+0mCO2jNjrF3U d9n1hgCkinyhtVjY4Ihf4SgKaBEHXCDq1e8LwdBJ9qNE8Ag8yfyK/QGepn3BtZfr130x VR0thYWtyMLjuKBqPNFQ4M6JY2ZkuE8HyvJ9ke2B7SpMONGQwsLbUw8vIK9cSPoEKB8I jpCAgh3vVWQKzy/5CUjOfrEnoNUodDgsd4avQgZDjJXoP4owjFNwC/za0yRhtL3kkT+X /E5WVzLCu+CRoTiDiwTUbL0bziB3BYH30ceo1eP0fHmQQthl0ibfLfZuQ1PJIoUvTxdB RDSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uJJG29GYWEf+9guOqlcztDYy9Ql7JJKIb8yeBOdqZM8=; b=JIcQMXaP8mRlc4W5QTctfYtc9734otEKKGn2/B4jLx6ysO/WoUQUkKG07pvw7QAMq3 1orKh8UkXBcfxj33aQrXs/7FXwYN1almzAD8rj0MEMOTRdXWdBd0gVxUX3PofUnG6slN 5dtojuIQcAMQnO9MLCdV32+SEYLJLyXY97V/+pRy1le9ueaoImcIEnOHyWNfLwl9AeNR YPz/t7fPUxgVBowjjio+qNlIpdewJP+7VyAKG1tdpraGWv7FEq9mD4vUYQOx8WKQM/9N F3nU61BlbOdlbionFeSR/jzMC5JrItRQDhfSJwm6OKSIrlVgx0So3PzvHv5cVtJmTEnz OKXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530j3Rjr31SZQINavdFJoYIibJ4LutClX+tGmkca4uyxPtskL/Jl 9h59Mw+LZf1HBlj1gJ3z1meOrmnJk9YXPK+lZbw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmIEo/eOmBeKTtb/C4jTwhMgRJMMsg/QHoSqACQkbfZppzf65XcOBajbxSHBAbuUtFqxWSl0tjcVvBbAvSt6o=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:b415:0:b029:2f4:829f:e483 with SMTP id h21-20020a62b4150000b02902f4829fe483mr2898408pfn.4.1624503807361; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR13MB42066A2630749C71112DA3A9C2389@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1Hm990FqmVVwnaLpjBYM4iEz5pcwmoYNspp20XZc9j6g@mail.gmail.com> <BL3PR11MB5731CC6C909221705B7DE080BF0A9@BL3PR11MB5731.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL3PR11MB5731CC6C909221705B7DE080BF0A9@BL3PR11MB5731.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:03:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0zbNBet06VkXbCQJLK+5NHgPSd=y=1UWAAYfcyNb-i8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Cc: James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005fcb5d05c57a44df"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/hyomUS28SyBVM8_pAOSGE9S7bjk>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 03:03:34 -0000

Thanks Rakesh!

I support WG adoption.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 5:19 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Gyan for your review comments.
>
> We will address the comments highlighted in blue in the next revision of
> the document as per reply to Greg’s email.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <
> hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:37 PM
> *To: *James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>
> *Cc: *spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>rg>, spring-chairs@ietf.org <
> spring-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt
>
>
>
> Dear Authors
>
>
>
> I support WG adoption once the document is updated fixing the critical
> substantive issues that exist in the draft as it stands today.
>
>
>
> I have worked Rakesh and authors on feedback on the draft, and as the
> draft is well written, I do appreciate that the issues mentioned in
> previous discussions being incorporated to help improve the draft.
>
>
>
> This draft was initially on Standards Track and as this draft is
> procedural only, reusing existing IPPM OAM framework to apply to SR, Greg
> Mirksy and myself requested this draft be changed to Informational.  I am
> happy to see the authors did follow our comments and recommendations to
> change to informational.
>
>
>
> However, for this informational track document to be adopted by the WG,
> the substantive issues need to be addressed.  As this draft is
> informational from a procedural standpoint if this draft was not proposed,
> there is nothing preventing STAMP or TWAMP to function over an SR both
> SR-MPLS or SRv6.
>
>
>
> By proposing a draft that has substantive issues related to what is being
> proposed procedurally, the question that come to mind is what is the
> purpose or benefit to even having this draft given what I stated above that
> IPPM STAMP and TWAMP will work and function fine without this drafts
> existence.
>
>
>
> I think the above statement is all the more reasons that it is critical to
> get this draft cleaned up prior to WG adoption.
>
>
>
>
>
> This draft PM procedures is in scope for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.
>
>
>
> This draft is trying to reuse RFC 8762 STAMP for SR, however with the
> chosen verbiage describing the mode used, it seems to be changing the way
> STAMP operates per specification.   If the goal is to use STAMP in this
> informational context defining a special procedure for SR, this draft
> cannot alter or change the inner workings of STAMP.
>
>
>
>
>
> What is the reason for setting TTL to 1 and not use TTL 255 GTSM defined
> in RFC 5082.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> >From a measurement and performance metics perspective for SR-MPLS as it
> reuses the MPLS data plane the preferred method would be to use the entropy
> label RFC 6790, RFC 8662 for in band native data traffic than using IPv4 as
> once the packet is labeled the packet is label switched so using a label
> would be in band and in line with the MPLS forwarding plane.
>
>
>
> All of these questions as well as ones mentioned by Greg Mirsky should be
> addressed by the authors before this draft can be adopted.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:34 AM James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear WG:
>
>
>
> The IPPM WG has adopted
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00&data=04%7C01%7Cjguichar%40futurewei.com%7C68a7e8999c0e4d09f3fa08d927af658a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637584456542518360%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=G3aKv%2FCnBQskcEVz4GCGVK2tdCrzBldv3yBiUXkYR%2B8%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*