Hi, Tim and the Authors,
I fully agree with the conclusion of the review and have several notes that I hope are not too late to consider:
- It might be that referring to STAMP as Simple TWAMP could be confusing and mistaken as an extension to the TWAMP Lite profile of RFC 5357. To avoid the possible confusion, I propose to change the title to "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Segment Routing Networks", which is consistent with naming other STAMP RFCs, RFC 8762 and RFC 8972.
- While I agree that enabling co-routing for the reflected STAMP test packet is an important functionality defined in the document, it seems to me that it is not the only one scenario where new STAMP extensions could be used. I imagine that the Return Path TLV in combination with the Return Address sub-TLV could be used to direct the reflected STAMP test packet to an arbitrary host in the domain (or even anywhere in the network).
- Furthermore, the ability to control the path of the reflected STAMP test packet can be used beyond making it co-routed with the path of the packet transmitted by the Session-Sender. I feel like the document already identifies these use cases for the new TLVs, just wanted to note them.
Again, apologies for my notes being so late.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:35 PM Tim Chown via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Tim Chown
Review result: Ready
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Internet Area directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document describes an extension to the simple TWAMP protocol to support
its use in both MPLS and IPv6 segment routing networks in cases where it is
desired that the STAMP packets follow the same path from sender to reflector
and back again.
The document serves a useful purpose, is well-written, and Ready for
publication.
Minor comment: the abstract could make it clear that the extension is to enable
the same path to be taken out and back between sender and reflector.
Tim
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
