Hi,
I’ll have a review of the changes shortly. Just wanted to acknowledge I’ve seen
this mail ;)
Thanks,
Jouni
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I don't know why this email keeps getting cut off!
>
> I am attaching my response in a text file.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nalini Elkins
> Inside Products, Inc.
> www.insidethestack.com
> (831) 659-8360
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: jouni korhonen <[email protected]>; General Area Review Team
> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michael Ackermann <[email protected]>; Robert Hamilton
> <[email protected]>; MORTON ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time
>
> Resending. Somehow the last email was cut off.
>
> Nalini
>
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: jouni korhonen <[email protected]>; General Area Review Team
> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michael Ackermann <[email protected]>; Robert Hamilton
> <[email protected]>; MORTON ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time
>
> Jouni,
>
> Here is the thread for your second major comment:
>
> Major comment #2 from you:
>
> >2) The PDM option relation to actual "server" time is somewhat confusing and
> >the 5-tuple does not allow me to detect the real relationship between the
> >>server/application action that caused the generation of the packet and the
> >PDM within the packet. This is specifically an issue with
> >transport/application protocols >that multiplex/interleave multiple
> >application streams into one transport. I have no idea of the actual
> >individual application time since the packets get generated >independent of
> >the processing of a single thread. I would welcome some discussion around
> >here. Section 1.4 last paragraph is going to this direction but is not
> >>sufficient IMHO.
>
> Yes, you are, of course, correct that all traffic will flow between the
> matching ports at the two endpoints. The 5-tuples will match regardless of
> the application.
>
> The thing is that we never intended that PDM would distinguish between
> applications using the same 5-tuple. That is, it is a feature, not a bug.
>
> What PDM WILL tell you is whether the problem is in the network or the host.
> In our experience, which is primarily on networks for large data centers,
> there is a different group which is involved to troubleshoot the problem
> depending on the nature of the problem. That is, do I get the application
> developers on the line or the team that deals with the routers &
> infrastructure.
>
> One of the important functions of PDM is to allow you to do quick triage so
> that you can get the right SWAT team going. PDM does not tell you if the
> problem is in the IP stack or the application or buffer allocation. PDM
> also does not tell you which of the network segments or middle boxes is at
> fault. The reason for PDM is to get the right specialists in place who can
> then be dispatched to investigate their area.
>
> In our experience, valuable time is often lost at this first stage of triage.
> Both the network group and the application group have quite a few
> specialized tools at their disposal to further investigate their own areas.
>
> I am adding some of this verbiage to section 1.4. Please see below:
>
> CURRENT
> -----------
>
> 1.4 Rationale for defined solution
>
> The current IPv6 specification does not provide timing nor a similar
> field in the IPv6 main header or in any extension header. So, we
> define the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics destination option
> (PDM).
>
> Advantages include:
>
> 1. Real measure of actual transactions.
> 2. Independence from transport layer protocols.
> 3. Ability to span organizational boundaries with consistent
> instrumentation
> 4. No time synchronization needed between session partners
> 5. Ability to handle all transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc)
> in a uniform way
>
> The PDM provides the ability to determine quickly if the (latency)
> problem is in the network or in the server (application). More
> intermediate measurements may be needed if the host or network
> discrimination is not sufficient. At the client, TCP/IP stack time
> vs. application time may still need to be broken out by client
> software.
>
>
> NEW
> ----
>
> 1.4 Rationale for defined solution
>
> The current IPv6 specification does not provide timing nor a similar
> field in the IPv6 main header or in any extension header. So, we
> define the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics destination option
> (PDM).
>
> Advantages include:
>
> 1. Real measure of actual transactions.
> 2. Independence from transport layer protocols.
> 3. Ability to span organizational boundaries with consistent
> instrumentation
> 4. No time synchronization needed between session partners
> 5. Ability to handle all transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc)
> in a uniform way
>
> The PDM provides the ability to determine quickly if the (latency)
> problem is in the network or in the server (application). That is,
> it is a fast way to do triage.
>
> One of the important functions of PDM is to allow you to do quickly dispatch
> the right set of diagnosticians. Within network or server latency,
> there may be many components. The job of the diagnostician is to rule
> each one out until the culprit is found.
>
> How PDM fits into this diagnostic picture is that PDM will quickly tell
> you how to escalate. PDM will point to either the network area or the
> server area. Within the server latency, PDM does not tell you if the
> bottleneck
> is in the IP stack or the application or buffer allocation. Within the
> network latency,
> PDM does not tell you which of the network segments or middle boxes is at
> fault.
>
> What PDM will tell you is whether the problem is in the network or the
> server. In our experience,
> there is often a different group which is involved to troubleshoot the
> problem depending on the
> nature of the problem. That is, the problem may be escalated to the
> application developers
> or the team that deals with the routers and infrastructure. Both the network
> group and the
> application group have quite a few specialized tools at their disposal to
> further investigate their
> own areas. What is missing is the first step, which PDM provides.
>
> In our experience, valuable time is often lost at this first stage of triage.
> PDM is expected to
> reduce this time substantially.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nalini Elkins
> Inside Products, Inc.
> www.insidethestack.com
> (831) 659-8360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: jouni korhonen <[email protected]>
> To: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:14 AM
> Subject: Gen-ART review of
>
>
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/ar ea/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review Date: 9/23/2016
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-28
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
> Summary: The draft needs some work.
>
> Major issues:
>
>
> I have two technical issues here:
>
>
> 1) There is no mention of what is the time reference plane for internal time
> stamping. All other timing and synchronization related documents I am aware
> of (at least outside IETF) describe it very clearly where in the
> processing/packet handling the time stamp is to be taken. Now the document
> gives me no idea as an implementer where that should take place. At least it
> makes it hard to calculate the *network* RTT precisely.
>
>
> 2) The PDM option relation to actual "server" time is somewhat confusing and
> the 5-tuple does not allow me to detect the real relationship between the
> server/application action that caused the generation of the packet and the
> PDM within the packet. This is specifically an issue with
> transport/application protocols that multiplex/interleave multiple
> application streams into one transport. I have no idea of the actual
> individual application time since the packets get generated independent of
> the processing of a single thread. I would welcome some discussion around
> here. Section 1.4 last paragraph is going to this direction but is not
> sufficient IMHO.
>
>
> Minor issues:
>
>
> 1) This is a larger editorial issue. The document is far too long with a lot
> of repetition considering it describes only one IPv6 destination option. It
> is a writing style issue and I am fully aware of that. I have proposals how
> to cut text in the editorial comments section.
>
>
> 2) Section 1.2 3rd paragraph talks about IoT and that speed matters there. I
> find this too generalized statement. There are many other things that matter
> in this application domain and speed might not be that important as being
> able to send/receive that one to two bytes of data in a given time window. I
> suggest removing this paragraph.
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
> 1) Section 1.4 numbered list: add missing full stops.
>
>
> 2) Section 3.2: remove
> "The 5-tuple consists of
> the source and destination IP addresses, the source and destination
> ports, and the upper layer protocol (ex. TCP, ICMP, etc)."
>
> since this is unnecessary repetition.
>
> 3) Section 3.2: remove
> "Operating systems MUST NOT implement a single
> counter for all connections."
>
> Seems again like unnecessary repetition to previous sentence.
>
>
> 4) Section 3.2 again unnecessary repetition of IPv6 basics that can be read
> from RFC2460. Suggest strongly to remove:
> "This indicates the
> following processing requirements:
>
> 00 - skip over this option and continue processing the header.
>
> RFC2460 [RFC2460] defines other values for the Option Type field.
> These MUST NOT be used in the PDM."
>
>
> and
>
> "The
> possible values are as follows:
>
> 0 - Option Data does not change en-route
>
> 1 - Option Data may change en-route
>
> The three high-order bits described above are to be treated as part
> of the Option Type, not independent of the Option Type. That is, a
> particular option is identified by a full 8-bit Option Type, not just
> the low-order 5 bits of an Option Type."
>
>
> 5) Section 3.3 same as in comment 4). Suggest strongly removing:
> "This follows the order defined in RFC2460 [RFC2460]
> IPv6 header
>
> Hop-by-Hop Options header
>
> Destination Options header <--------
>
> Routing header
>
> Fragment header
>
> Authentication header
>
> Encapsulating Security Payload header
>
> Destination Options header <------------
>
> upper-layer header"
>
>
> 6) Suggest removing entire Section 3.4 and moving the following text to
> Section 3.3:
> "PDM MUST be placed before the ESP header in
> order to work. If placed before the ESP header, the PDM header will
> flow in the clear over the network thus allowing gathering of
> performance and diagnostic data without sacrificing security."
>
>
> 7) Section 3.6 suggest removing the following text. I see no value it would
> add to what has already been said:
> "As with all other destination options extension headers, the PDM is
> for destination nodes only. As specified above, intermediate devices
> MUST neither set nor modify this field."
>
>
> 8) Section 3.6 suggest removing the following 5-tuple text as it has already
> been described earlier in Section 2:
> "The 5-tuple is:
>
> SADDR : IP address of the sender SPORT : Port for sender DADDR : IP
> address of the destination DPORT : Port for destination PROTC :
> Protocol for upper layer (ex. TCP, UDP, ICMP)"
>
>
> 9) Sections 4.2 and 4.3 suggest removing them entirely. I see what value
> these sections add. I acknowledge they are good to know information of timer
> hardware implementation difference but do not really add value on the on-wire
> encoding of the PDM option.
>
>
> 10) Section 4.4 suggest removing the entire section. Time Base was already
> described in detail enough in Section 3.2.
>
>
> 11) Section 4.5 time base for picoseconds is 11 not 00.
>
>
> 12) Section 4.5 suggest removing the following text, since it does not add
> any more clarity to what has already been said in my opinion. This is because
> all the examples follow nice nybble increment in scaling:
> "Sample binary values (high order 16 bits taken)
>
> 1 psec 1 0001
> 1 nsec 3E8 0011 1110 1000
> 1 usec F4240 1111 0100 0010 0100 0000
> 1 msec 3B9ACA00 0011 1011 1001 1010 1100 1010 0000 0000
> 1 sec E8D4A51000 1110 1000 1101 0100 1010 0101 0001 0000 0000 0000"
>
>
> 12) Section 4.6 I do not understand why this section is here. I strongly
> suggest removing it. Sections 4.5 and 3.2 already describe how I would encode
> the delta time using scaling as a separate fields not embedded (option fields
> ScaleDTLR and ScaleDTLS). Did I misunderstand something here?
>
>
> 13) Section 5 suggest removing the following text because of it repeating
> what has already been said earlier:
> "Each packet, in addition to the PDM contains information on the
> sender and receiver. As discussed before, a 5-tuple consists of:
>
> SADDR : IP address of the sender
> SPORT : Port for sender
> DADDR : IP address of the destination
> DPORT : Port for destination
> PROTC : Protocol for upper layer (ex. TCP, UDP, ICMP)
>
> It should be understood that the packet identification information is
> in each packet. We will not repeat that in each of the following
> steps."
>
>
> 14) Section 5.3 suggest merging the following text into one example and do
> necessary rewording. There is no need to do the same calculation twice on
> almost adjacent lines:
>
> "Sending time : packet 2 - receive time : packet 1
>
> We will call the result of this calculation: Delta Time Last Received
> (DELTATLR)
>
> That is:
>
> Delta Time Last Received = (Sending time: packet 2 - receive time:
> packet 1)"
>
>
> 15) Expand RTT and PSN on their first use.
>
>
> Phew.. after all this I found the document good reading and most likely a
> useful tool to be used.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jouni
>
>
>
>
> <serverTimeComments.txt>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
