Al, Love it!!!
Jouni? Anyone else? Thanks so much, Al. What would I do without you? Nalini Elkins Inside Products, Inc. www.insidethestack.com (831) 659-8360 -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 3/10/17, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor and editorial To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "jouni.nospam" <[email protected]> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Michael Ackermann" <[email protected]>, "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, March 10, 2017, 7:05 AM Hi Nalini, Let me suggest a few quick clarifications in a top-post: I liked your original first sentence, with the SHOULD, that's really all we can ask. The last sentence was quite practical, too. Also, wiretime is a concept/notion, the ideal we try to get close to achieving in practice. And we need to say what H and L are, so, here's my proposal... Re-Revised Section 3.5.2 ---------------------------- 3.5.2 PDM Timestamps The PDM timestamps SHOULD be taken as close to the network interface as possible. The PDM timestamps are intended to isolate wire time from server or host time, but may necessarily attribute some host processing time to network latency. RFC2330 [RFC2330] "Framework for IP Performance Metrics" describes two notions of wire time in section 10.2. These notions are only defined in terms of an Internet host H observing an Internet link L at a particular location: + For a given packet P, the 'wire arrival time' of P at H on L is the first time T at which any bit of P has appeared at H's observational position on L. + For a given packet P, the 'wire exit time' of P at H on L is the first time T at which all the bits of P have appeared at H's observational position on L." Not all implementations will be able to achieve the ideal level of measurement. Al > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:44 AM > To: [email protected]; jouni.nospam; MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm- > [email protected]; Michael Ackermann; Robert Hamilton > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor > and editorial > > Al, > > I should have remembered that from RFC2330! > > Thanks for pointing that out. My revised wording inline. > > Nalini > > -------------------------------------------- > On Fri, 3/10/17, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor > and editorial > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "jouni.nospam" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-ippm- > [email protected]" <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm- > [email protected]>, "Michael Ackermann" <[email protected]>, > "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, March 10, 2017, 6:21 AM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:55 AM > > To: [email protected]; > jouni.nospam > > Cc: General Area Review Team; > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm- > > [email protected]; > Michael Ackermann; Robert Hamilton > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor > > and editorial > > > > Jouni, > > > > Our team has been discussing this. So, > please let us know what you > > think about the wording below: > > > > > > Wording to be added to section 3.5 Implementation > Considerations (will > > make the current considerations 3.5.1) > > > > ************************************************************************ > > ************************************************* > > > > 3.5.2 PDM Timestamps > > > > The PDM timestamps SHOULD be taken as close to the > network interface as > > possible. This will ensure the most > accurate measurements. > > > > The ideal PDM reference plane or timestamp location > is: > > > > - Send direction: when the first bit of the first octet > of the IP header > > is received for output by the network interface > > > > - Receive direction when the first bit of the > first octet of the IP > > header is received for input by the network interface. > > > > Not all implementations will be able to achieve the > ideal level of > > measurement. > > > [ACM] > > >Hi Nalini, > > > It just occurred to me that your IPPM draft can reference > > the IPPM Framework RFC 2330, especially the section on > > clocks and Wiretime: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2330-23section-2D10.2&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=IPrnGy4K3nr5XaQh24815q0ZAYu > LInXigPyegsEXaM0&s=3hPio_KWWSEZw3NhtTfAbT1mXSXhz_I2yP-WEL58K8I&e= > > > IOW, we've been down this road before, > > Revised Section 3.5.2 > ---------------------------- > > 3.5.2 PDM Timestamps > > The PDM timestamps are intended to isolate wire time from > server or host time. > > RFC2330 [RFC2330] "Framework for IP Performance Metrics" > discusses measurement of wire time in section 10.2. > > " + For a given packet P, the 'wire arrival time' of P at H on L is > the first time T at which any bit of P has appeared at H's > observational position on L. > > + For a given packet P, the 'wire exit time' of P at H on L is the > first time T at which all the bits of P have appeared at H's > observational position on L." > > The timestamping methods used in a PDM implementation > MUST follow the guidelines provided by RFC2330. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nalini Elkins > > Inside Products, Inc. > > www.insidethestack.com > > (831) 659-8360 > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > On Mon, 3/6/17, jouni.nospam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor > > and editorial > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>, > "draft-ietf-ippm- > > [email protected]" > <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm- > > [email protected]>, > "Michael Ackermann" <[email protected]>, > > "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, March 6, 2017, 11:15 AM > > > > Hi Nalini, > > > > Thank you. Accurate > > timestamping is a non-trivial goal to achieve. > You should > > have the “ideal” reference plane described > (this usually > > is located close or within the network interface > PHY) and > > the exact packet location described what > constitutes the > > point that timestamp refers to (*). While most > existing > > systems plain have no access to required > resources/functions > > to do the timestamping “properly” you try > your best and > > adjust the timestamp with the time you predict it > takes to > > reach the “ideal” reference plane. This of > course adds > > certain amount of error (just check the typical > operating > > system context switch times) but you can get > around it just > > by acknowledging the fact or the trying to > describe your > > acceptable maximum error tolerance.. like +-1ms > from the > > ideal timestamp if the packet were timestamped at > the PDM > > defined reference plane and at the PDM defined > message > > timestamping point. The former is obviously > easier > > approach. > > > > - JOuni > > > > (*) example: when the first > > bit of the first octet of the IP header (i.e., > the first bit > > of IP version field) gets output by the PHY to > the physical > > link. And to the receive direction when the first > bit of the > > IP header is received by the network interface > PHY.. or > > something similar. It does not be this strict as > long as > > there is clear understanding what is going on. > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2017, at > > 6:41 AM, <[email protected]> > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Jouni, > > > > > > OK. I > > will look. We are also working with a very > well > > respected FreeBSD developer to create a version > of FreeBSD > > which has PDM in it. > > > > > > We need to know exactly what choices one > > has in the OS stack itself. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Nalini Elkins > > > Inside > > Products, Inc. > > > > > www.insidethestack.com > > > (831) > > 659-8360 > > > > > > > > > From: jouni.nospam <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>; > > "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]>; > > Michael Ackermann <[email protected]>; > > Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 4:54 PM > > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of > > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor and > editorial > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thank you for the > > updates. I am fine with them. > > > > > > I still have one fundamental complaint. > > There is no discussion or definition of the > message > > timestamp points. All this nanosecond or better > accuracy, > > and the concern of truncation inaccuracy do not > really > > matter if the message timestamp point varies node > to node or > > even within the node. I suggest taking a look at > standards > > like IEEE 802.1AS, IEEE 1588v2 or IEEE 1722 for > discussions > > of this topic. You really need to have a good > definition > > & discussion of the message timestamp point, > or justify > > that in the text why it is not there. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jouni > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:04 AM, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jouni, > > > > > > > > > > We have posted a new version which addresses the > minor and > > editorial comments. It is below. I am waiting > for your > > response to the major comments & then I will > > integrate. As far as I know now, I have > addressed all > > outstanding issues. My comments to your > editorial / minor > > is below. > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > > > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2D6man-2Dpdm- > > 2Doption_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ- > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=cYzACikChPQGF4cm8f- > > > > wBWGYz8GduHbmLA55dmSpsuM&s=2eDvhYB5jPh66D2Mj4HHXH6UcQuJtuyffJfrrcNdiyw&e > > = > > > > > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > > > > >> 1) > > Section 1.4 numbered list: add missing full > stops. > > > > > > > > Actually, > > I think it is better to remove the full stops > from the two > > that have it. These are sentence > > > > > > fragments. > > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > is in the section below: > > > > > > > > Old > > > > ---- > > > > > > Packet Sequence Number This > > Packet (PSNTP) > > > > > > > > 16-bit unsigned integer. This field > > will wrap. It is intended for > > > > use > > while analyzing packet traces. > > > > > > > > > > Initialized at a random number > > and incremented monotonically for each > > > > > > packet of the session flow of the 5-tuple. > 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). The > > > > > > random number initialization is intended to make > it harder > > to spoof > > > > and insert such packets. > > > > > > > > > > New > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Packet Sequence Number This Packet (PSNTP) > > > > > > > > 16-bit > > unsigned integer. This field will wrap. It is > intended for > > > > > > use while analyzing packet > > traces. > > > > > > > > > > Initialized at a random number and > incremented > > monotonically for each > > > > packet of > > the session flow of the 5-tuple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3) > > Section 3.2: remove > > > > > > > >> "Operating systems MUST NOT > > implement a single > > > > > > > >> counter for all > > connections." > > > > > > > >> Seems again like unnecessary > > repetition to previous sentence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > is in the section on "Packet Sequence Number > This > > Packet (PSNTP)" > > > > > > > > Old > > > > --- > > > > > > Operating systems MUST implement > > a separate packet sequence number > > > > > > counter per 5-tuple. Operating systems MUST NOT > implement a > > single > > > > counter for all > > connections. > > > > > > > > New > > > > --- > > > > > > Operating systems MUST implement > > a separate packet sequence number > > > > > > counter per 5-tuple. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Old > > > > > > ---- > > > > Option Type > > > > > > > > The two > > highest-order bits of the Option Type field are > encoded to > > > > > > indicate specific processing of > > the option; for the PDM destination > > > > > > option, these two bits MUST be set to 00. > 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. > > > > > > > > > > In keeping with RFC2460 > > [RFC2460], the third-highest-order bit of the > > > > Option Type specifies whether or not > > the Option Data of that option > > > > > > can change en-route to the packet's final > destination. > > > > > > > > > > In the > > PDM, the value of the third-highest-order bit > MUST be 0. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Option Type > > > > > > > > > > In keeping with RFC2460[RFC2460], the two > high order > > bits of the Option Type field are encoded to > > > > indicate specific processing of the > > option; for the PDM destination > > > > > > option, these two bits MUST be set to 00. > > > > > > > > The third > > high order bit of the Option Type specifies > whether or not > > the Option Data of that option > > > > > > can change en-route to the packet's final > destination. > > > > > > > > > > In the > > PDM, the value of the third high order bit MUST > be 0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ESP processing with PDM was changed because of > comments from > > security reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Done > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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)" > > > > > > > > > > Done > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points 9 - 12 refer to the timing calculations. > The > > timebase has been fixed to be attoseconds. > > > > The entire timing section has been > > re-written. It has also been moved to an > appendix. > > > > Please let us know if it this > > addresses your concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > This is now in Appendix B. It has > > been removed from that section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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)" > > > > > > > > > > Done > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 15) Expand RTT and PSN on their first use. > > > > > > > > Done > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Nalini > > Elkins > > > > Inside Products, Inc. > > > > www.insidethestack.com > > > > (831) 659-8360 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
