Thanks Rakesh! I support WG adoption.
Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 5:19 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Gyan Mishra < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:37 PM > *To: *James Guichard <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > -- > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
