From nobody Wed May 13 00:54:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8451A1A7D for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:54:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 Ua84bkLgFtqB for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B320B1A1A75 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP; 13 May 2015 09:54:26 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,420,1427752800"; d="scan'208";a="671812698" Received: from he113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.130]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 13 May 2015 09:54:20 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 13 May 2015 09:54:16 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:54:15 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Thread-Index: AdB9nnoqjgxP7fc3QN66WtijVTTwDQPshhGw Message-ID: References: <4456E087-4C40-48CD-B0BC-7CB53EAE4469@trammell.ch> <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 07:54:36 -0000 Brian I didn't succeed in reading the complete draft. I appreciate the work and t= hink it should be picked up by IPPM WG. Not sure, whether this should be do= ne with this version (but as stated: didn't read it all). The draft says "A TDS together with additional specification such as "type-p",=20 etc which are out of scope for this document..." This allows the question whether this is a framework rather than a metric s= pecification. Further, terminology may be straightened and then should be applied more st= ringently throughout the document. To me the draft requires concentrated re= ading to follow the ideas (I don't claim my own drafts to be any better to = this respect and I know that the changes I ask for are somewhat painful for= authors). So far I had many editorials and minor comments. I will send them to the au= thors. Regards, Ruediger -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Brian Trammell Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2015 10:17 An: ippm@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Greetings, all, Seeing no comment on this WGLC, we will extend the WGLC by two weeks, now t= o end next Friday, 1 May 2015. *Please* review and comment on the draft to the ippm@ietf.org list. Thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) > On 27 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > Working Group Last Call has started on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metric= s. Please provide final comments on this document to the IPPM working group= list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 17 April 2015. >=20 > (Note, given that many in the room who had read previous revisions of thi= s document indicated they had not reviewed the latest, this is a three week= WGLC to allow additional reading time.) >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Wed May 13 02:06:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7E81AC40F for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 02:06:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 s8Y0kvtcXPuG for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 02:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681591AC40B for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4502F1A0B34; Wed, 13 May 2015 11:06:14 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_21979756-7855-4443-823A-C4BAE16B37F2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:06:13 +0200 Message-Id: References: <4456E087-4C40-48CD-B0BC-7CB53EAE4469@trammell.ch> <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch> To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:06:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_21979756-7855-4443-823A-C4BAE16B37F2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 hi Ruediger, Thanks for the review! > On 13 May 2015, at 09:54, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote: >=20 > Brian >=20 > I didn't succeed in reading the complete draft. I appreciate the work = and think it should be picked up by IPPM WG. Not sure, whether this = should be done with this version (but as stated: didn't read it all). This is already a WG draft; this was a WGLC. It's clear from this and = other comments that submission to the IESG will be held for a new = revision. > The draft says >=20 > "A TDS together with additional specification such as "type-p", > etc which are out of scope for this document..." >=20 > This allows the question whether this is a framework rather than a = metric specification. Matt discussed in Dallas the possibility of sending a framework draft to = IPPM for consideration for adoption. Perhaps some of the "frameworkier" = bits of this doc could be pulled into the future doc. In this specific case, though, I think what the document is saying is = that this method of bulk transfer capacity measurement is orthogonal to = the properties of the specific packets used for the measurement. = (There's also something not quite stated here, that this method, as its = singleton output is a boolean and as its input parameters describe the = "shape" of the traffic rather than the properties of the packets per se, = doesn't quite fit into 2330.) > Further, terminology may be straightened and then should be applied = more stringently throughout the document. To me the draft requires = concentrated reading to follow the ideas (I don't claim my own drafts to = be any better to this respect and I know that the changes I ask for are = somewhat painful for authors). >=20 > So far I had many editorials and minor comments. I will send them to = the authors. Many thanks! Cheers, Brian > Regards, Ruediger >=20 >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Brian Trammell > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2015 10:17 > An: ippm@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > Seeing no comment on this WGLC, we will extend the WGLC by two weeks, = now to end next Friday, 1 May 2015. >=20 > *Please* review and comment on the draft to the ippm@ietf.org list. >=20 > Thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) >=20 >> On 27 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Brian Trammell wrote: >>=20 >> Greetings, all, >>=20 >> Working Group Last Call has started on = draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics. Please provide final comments on = this document to the IPPM working group list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 17 = April 2015. >>=20 >> (Note, given that many in the room who had read previous revisions of = this document indicated they had not reviewed the latest, this is a = three week WGLC to allow additional reading time.) >>=20 >> Many thanks, best regards, >>=20 >> Brian (chair hat) >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >=20 --Apple-Mail=_21979756-7855-4443-823A-C4BAE16B37F2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVUxQFAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcmh0IAIObEJ2dZH9Ow4a7w1q99IhW g7+hdyRi2B5qUSYqhkrMKXRVfmN8gRjga/qxKpbzFagDSFAsaAmHlHyqdahH0tq4 hu90X8EkFy/3F1JDVxlOFyVcbSDag4v/pJS2qQZ6sKI1TS/JmRG/9+4YWyBS42z3 oRI9XUQ25rZk8pVZeXKqoArBsNHY+EroonQaj51CNPLfNUIrlZLjqV3egifAuUNA +EwSrulOMTMtofCKJ4E6w3IbEKhNTFGU914Kvh3sevJ641rjD4ecesdt8CWIlyIM rLmbOEwlq5JW8stbmkms3JuU3x6fNB54bva5r7y9X2WYN5VnRhZGrhsC4rKLKi8= =1Som -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_21979756-7855-4443-823A-C4BAE16B37F2-- From nobody Mon May 18 06:32:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6491B1A8954 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 06:32:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.16 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 FFwJbgzNt0Tx for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 06:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39B9A1A895B for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FB11018 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:48 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.220]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id ckjcKyLv5n3z for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6B32002B for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fpglwFRwyw-m for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (shubcas01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C246320013 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([fe80::c1f:c30f:99ac:df0c]) by SHUBCAS01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:32:46 +0200 From: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: survey on performance measurement platforms and related standards Thread-Index: AQHQkW8g2edKn2/2Ek6q4k/aierxMQ== Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 13:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <99347AC6-8F7D-4A2D-896B-F20CAF26BE8E@jacobs-university.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.50.203.30] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_993A8809-13A4-4350-9AF7-142E713DF8C8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] survey on performance measurement platforms and related standards X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 13:32:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_993A8809-13A4-4350-9AF7-142E713DF8C8 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear IPPM, I would like to share something with you today. As you know, IETF LMAP [1] is making efforts to standardize large-scale measurements to allow divergent measurement platforms to converge = towards interoperability. Early discussions within this group often lead to = folks asking for feature sets and possibilities of each contemporary = performance measurement platform. So we started digging literature work in this = space and found that although there were surveys on topology-based measurement = platforms (such CAIDA Ark et al.); literature work on performance measurement = platforms (such as RIPE Atlas, SamKnows et al.) was missing. Therefore, we started writing such a survey in 2013 to plug this gap and = also complement this with current state of IETF standardization efforts = happening within the LMAP and IPPM working groups. This work got published and came online recently. I thought would share this with you: = ----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8= < A Survey on Internet Performance Measurement Platforms and Related = Standardization Efforts Vaibhav Bajpai, J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials April, 2015 A number of Internet measurement platforms have emerged in the last few = years. These platforms have deployed thousands of probes at strategic locations within access and backbone networks and behind residential gateways. In = this paper we provide a taxonomy of these measurement platforms on the basis = of their deployment use-case. We describe these platforms in detail by = exploring their coverage, scale, lifetime, deployed metrics and measurement tools, architecture and overall research impact. We conclude the survey by = describing current standardization efforts to make large-scale performance = measurement platforms interoperable. Author Copy: = http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/lsmp-comst-2015.pdf DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2418435 = ----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8= < Thanks! [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lmap Best, Vaibhav =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D Vaibhav Bajpai Research I, Room 91 Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (CNDS) Lab School of Engineering and Sciences Jacobs University Bremen, Germany www.vaibhavbajpai.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D --Apple-Mail=_993A8809-13A4-4350-9AF7-142E713DF8C8 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVWen9AAoJEHR3XKwTWKOZbcEH/0d/GwbsTGpewL18sijlc3kj 4azDUHdo61tXk/WwjBcMKxDQI0rWg2DVd9I59ISj6grm2bRVkVeOsgNDEPi+smhl I2fLhXCV0sdm4++IiJJR7tK2nGuce3uSIm1zhTxm698hB57N+ef4JC5oWfbsxYfl AWEoITc2lUO8hEqvO3KyMtOR8tKKdMpOv90feviA3KTpILT5vdqrt5j2Kr3XLgbT IivJ2+qlN4E3mIDLHBH7UtCmZgH5Mju+AKedssPIYENap6ZpmZMpbKLLWkzUbhKe BbPqFr/7HhkqX5xOimH0d+nOb9hLvoqT/pH4W+090jybiySHrR/nOix2/HgXnQc= =b0U8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_993A8809-13A4-4350-9AF7-142E713DF8C8-- From nobody Wed May 20 04:50:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCE81A070E for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.013 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 IXapN2LHib9v for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3251A079D for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nb-10604.ethz.ch (nb-10604.ethz.ch [82.130.102.91]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B85BB1A06E4 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:49:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_84918294-C0A5-4771-B807-AA6F4A00E198"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:49:31 +0200 Message-Id: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:50:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_84918294-C0A5-4771-B807-AA6F4A00E198 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, As discussed in Dallas, we'd like to ask the IP Performance Metrics = Working Group to consider adopting the following milestone: Submit draft on an IPv6 Destination Option for performance and = diagnostic measurement to the IESG as Proposed Standard (Mar 2016) and to consider adopting draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 as the = basis of a working group document for this milestone. Please indicate whether or not you would be in favor of taking this work = on, and if so, if you will review the document within the WG. This call = for adoption will run until Thursday 4 June 2015. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (wearing a chair hat) --Apple-Mail=_84918294-C0A5-4771-B807-AA6F4A00E198 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVXHTLAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcgQ0IAKCgiNec4IeJXMWPKO9aQWJN Rwv4i5Z+QqBaC++mJ8amQv5PlOYDr0MaajEyBnnQ30Fvc3t0Rxkkxj3cRON3wXgv Ma9WudYS2j8fIBA+SzZkaM2XW9UOr8r+bkV9m3KN1aleXgCLqNdpde9W745FHSqF A9lV9NqnorCyk+uiEVBDjlQe4fwZiQvtcTwCVciOiqoW22q6ejvQ0vH2VtJ8ML8k ROxv1TniBJ5wUa00IfolRATldPCP/y932HANuROKlO/vq6iAQH0XIDAKnE++JySm ZjqX6Nn3Zyikdxmrajt/kHAjoHyhJTeIZNSv2Lddv63fkxWD3hNFf39GVg3xqNY= =VNtL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_84918294-C0A5-4771-B807-AA6F4A00E198-- From nobody Wed May 20 04:59:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665831A1A87 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:59:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 8efSyUsq8k0n for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2636B1A1A82 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 04:59:57 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79a96d000007fb1-ec-555c1e93b6a9 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 24.DC.32689.39E1C555; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:41:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:59:55 -0400 From: Steve Baillargeon To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AQHQkvMi1KeyxXW8WkunsEL9+uAnV52EwJ+g Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:59:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt+5kuZhQg0n3dS02trxjs+h58I7Z gcljyZKfTB5P9s9kCWCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq4tfkzY8El9oq/MyazNzBOZ+ti5OSQEDCR +L7xJyuELSZx4d56sLiQwFFGibs7+bsYuYDs5YwSu96tYAZJsAlYSKyfuwzMFhFwk7h0chOY LSzgLtF1+DwjRNxDomnFP3YI20hi+aO7YDUsAqoSKxc1gy3gFfCV+DthFxPEMjuJvmtrWUBs TgF7iTXLr4HNYRSQldh99jpYDbOAuMStJ/OZIA4VkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLxP6gHlCTmvL7GDFGv I7Fg9yc2CFtbYtnC18wQewUlTs58wjKBUXQWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYwcpcWpZbnpRgab GIHRcEyCTXcH456XlocYBTgYlXh4FaqiQ4VYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ834zDAkVEkhPLEnNTk0t SC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwMjzw9eXQ4O3kCFx0mEp3sTsa4+Xnd77ofKDRPyHnFm20Y+O3U83 3CbTPfmmnL/x9nCHmsQTPGaVtg/fJurfebX4+/vHJfGtv7b9fLRUU4l32ebKyT3R2SJzWhYJ LT3Se6cipUNYZVHnBZdpb8qF6pYtvn4iwbHaY29/nUTmlDNeoefvrNt/p0mJpTgj0VCLuag4 EQB5eBM3ZwIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:59:58 -0000 Hi Brian I agree to the adoption and will review doc. Steve -----Original Message----- From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7:50 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Greetings, all, As discussed in Dallas, we'd like to ask the IP Performance Metrics Working= Group to consider adopting the following milestone: Submit draft on an IPv6 Destination Option for performance and diagnostic m= easurement to the IESG as Proposed Standard (Mar 2016) and to consider adopting draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 as the basis = of a working group document for this milestone. Please indicate whether or not you would be in favor of taking this work on= , and if so, if you will review the document within the WG. This call for a= doption will run until Thursday 4 June 2015. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (wearing a chair hat) From nobody Wed May 20 05:01:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D8F1A0423 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 N_kqo2jO6NB0 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 05:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775861A039D for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 05:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.255.18]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050C7120B8F; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05883E013E; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:01:39 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:00:04 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AdCS8yVtDf8M7maGST6rUc6Ke247cQAAVzp9 Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB4E2F18@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:01:44 -0000 +1 on the adopting the milestone. Support draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 for adoption and will review. regards, Al ________________________________________ From: ippm [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell [ietf@tramme= ll.ch] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7:49 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Greetings, all, As discussed in Dallas, we'd like to ask the IP Performance Metrics Working= Group to consider adopting the following milestone: Submit draft on an IPv6 Destination Option for performance and diagnostic m= easurement to the IESG as Proposed Standard (Mar 2016) and to consider adopting draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 as the basis = of a working group document for this milestone. Please indicate whether or not you would be in favor of taking this work on= , and if so, if you will review the document within the WG. This call for a= doption will run until Thursday 4 June 2015. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (wearing a chair hat)= From nobody Wed May 20 06:45:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2E61A1B7C for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 06:45:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.626 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 cYUf3zgJX8Fo for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 06:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C4D1A1B48 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t4KDjZUL003527; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:45:35 -0600 Received: from exchange.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.19) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Wed, 20 May 2015 07:45:34 -0600 (MDT) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) Received: from EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) by EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:45:34 -0600 From: Michael Kloberdans To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AQHQkvMeNN3s5Cpesk6M4/Eaz82ZdJ2E4CiA Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:45:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.1.248] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:45:41 -0000 I agree with adopting the milestone and will review/support the elkins draft. Thanks, Michael Kloberdans On 5/20/15, 5:49 AM, "Brian Trammell" wrote: >Greetings, all, > >As discussed in Dallas, we'd like to ask the IP Performance Metrics >Working Group to consider adopting the following milestone: > >Submit draft on an IPv6 Destination Option for performance and diagnostic >measurement to the IESG as Proposed Standard (Mar 2016) > >and to consider adopting draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 as the >basis of a working group document for this milestone. > >Please indicate whether or not you would be in favor of taking this work >on, and if so, if you will review the document within the WG. This call >for adoption will run until Thursday 4 June 2015. > >Many thanks, best regards, > >Brian (wearing a chair hat) From nobody Wed May 20 13:01:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46AC1A9085; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 eCB3_Oq4X5rV; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (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 38D991A9076; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so2761605lbb.3; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=D1t4iQDt5FlbS7JzkNTk/RITQgfSMA8/bzUxoqJNmnY=; b=OS+FrY1tDrkj+JjS2STZ+laV1k6Gouh1ggLBRyuuPVIzMkmdTj48EkLwjC1fvkB50Y pkGC76EsfeQjjLsHZIdbVxCxPisy4Vrvhf2V0n7jEM/FNc36wfvkFabEdfnPzTEnUu3x N9HfkxUDypt7JHkVPWZZJ6IdnNOUyIiLZVMwXDb+yR1PkT6vGTJAOvHAhzX440a46SiV FgnfhnAXteHOg0GtJbNPANZ8RGjKoo7P7t/dB4IYWn9NxAOh8zari76mKlXVhDGkTYwb f2hyxqKlpghhKI4bZBgMo7I/7TsWbcxHjUTUUek+Tps5emO7AoMMuwQPwvxorJAPpVTF ulkQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.23.4 with SMTP id i4mr19252866laf.51.1432152093669; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.28.131 with HTTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150407215944.10583.95929.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150407215944.10583.95929.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:01:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b87acec22f051688e495 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:01:48 -0000 --089e0160b87acec22f051688e495 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Just following up ... On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In the last paragraph, the text indicates that if the IKEv2 SA is rekeyed > or deleted, O/TWAMP can continue to use the same shared secret. The > language seems to make such a continuance optional. Does that cause an > interoperability problem if the endpoints don't agree on the strategy? > > If so, this may need a 2119 MUST (or possibly SHOULD). I didn't see a response to Ben's Discuss on this draft, and his ballot position is still Discuss. Did I miss it? The comments below also matter, of course :-) Thanks, Spencer > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 1, paragraph 4: > > This paragraph casts the decision whether to send O/TWAMP inside or > outside of an IPSec tunnel as a question of how you want to secure the > O/TWAMP packets. It seems to me that this is really more a matter of what > you want to measure, given that the tunneled data and non-tunneled data > may have different performance capabilities. > > Sentence starting with "In this case...": The antecedent of "this" is > unclear. > > Section 1, 2nd to last paragraph: > > I assume the last sentence means that IKEv2 derived keys SHOULD be used > instead of shared secrets when otherwise using IKEv2. That seems to add a > normative requirement to OWAMP and TWAMP in general, in which case this > doc should be listed as updating those. > > Section 3: > > I agree with Brian's DISCUSS. > > Section 4.1: > > Please expand HMAC on first mention. > > Section 5.1: > > "SK_d MUST be computed as per [ref]" :That doesn't need 2119 language. > > "string "IPPM" comprises four ASCII characters ": This is oddly > constructed. Is this intended to observe that IPPM has 4 letters? > > Section 5.2, paragraph after Figure 2: "Clearly, an implementation .... > MUST ..." > > It is not as clear to me. Why does the use of IKEv2 create a stronger > requirement to support all 3 protection modes? > > Section 5.3:, first paragraph: > > "The Set-Up-Response Message should be updated": Do you mean to say it > _is_ updated? > > Paragraph after figure 3: > > s/ "can uniquely identify" / "uniquely identifies" > > 5.4, last sentence: > > The sentence is confusing. Do you mean to say that O/TWAMP SHOULD be > configured to use the tunnel? > > > --089e0160b87acec22f051688e495 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just following up ...

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@n= ostrum.com> wrote:
Ben Camp= bell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-crit= eria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the last paragraph, the text indicates that if the IKEv2 SA is rekeyed or deleted, O/TWAMP can continue to use the same shared secret. The
language seems to make such a continuance optional. Does that cause an
interoperability problem if the endpoints don't agree on the strategy?<= br>
If so, this may need a 2119 MUST (or possibly SHOULD).
I didn't see a response to Ben's Discuss on this draft,= and his ballot position is still Discuss. Did I miss it?

The comments below also matter, of course :-)

<= div>Thanks,

Spencer
=C2=A0
----------------------------------------------------= ------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1, paragraph 4:

This paragraph casts the decision whether to send O/TWAMP inside or
outside of an IPSec tunnel as a question of how you want to secure the
O/TWAMP packets. It seems to me that this is really more a matter of what you want to measure, given that the tunneled data and non-tunneled data
may have different performance capabilities.

Sentence starting with "In this case...": The antecedent of "= ;this" is
unclear.

Section 1, 2nd to last paragraph:

I assume the last sentence means that IKEv2 derived keys SHOULD be used
instead of shared secrets when otherwise using IKEv2. That seems to add a normative requirement to OWAMP and TWAMP in general, in which case this
doc should be listed as updating those.

Section 3:

I agree with Brian's DISCUSS.

Section 4.1:

Please expand HMAC on first mention.

Section 5.1:

"SK_d MUST be computed as per [ref]" :That doesn't need 2119 = language.

"string "IPPM" comprises four ASCII characters ": This = is oddly
constructed. Is this intended to observe that IPPM has 4 letters?

Section 5.2, paragraph after Figure 2: "Clearly, an implementation ...= .
MUST ..."

It is not as clear to me. Why does the use of IKEv2 create a stronger
requirement to support all 3 protection modes?

Section 5.3:, first paragraph:

"The Set-Up-Response Message should be updated": Do you mean to s= ay it
_is_ updated?

Paragraph after figure 3:

s/ "can uniquely identify" / "uniquely identifies"

5.4, last sentence:

The sentence is confusing. Do you mean to say that O/TWAMP SHOULD be
configured to use the tunnel?



--089e0160b87acec22f051688e495-- From nobody Wed May 20 13:04:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6A91A8BAF; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 86wDJIRBeatY; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (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 245271A9008; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so87973881lag.3; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=k+L51TZlefbCVFdjEh+ZAucN9LhZsAw4DzGSiWdBtRo=; b=nZZ1oz9YrBbAYO5S28Hd40AN0A5gQdap5BisgDfrkH8TkbB3FFPqVz3/GTr3NDZyom Vy9WNOGKQcGbp3qdp39HA/S2oiO2eNKw+Cj0x2sQvoKGdKyUBz/UeDhzTXA5T61L8fbu I4ulKpo3jfdCeiVrf0vB1ZAkwSiOAYEPP3kzvfKsAI4dQqB2PVhWnlxetFT1lUeFwuiT CTTgwRGezXcfB7hGNKljh3ufFTBUesddjC3qxF99Hpo74OWojWoe3b+iF5E+aBnDibp7 fe3Ebskup3C4x8drm6N0D+norEDgQVe1Arf2slmUjHqpBTGB2HC16+RMGRu/4Np5xQGb l2EA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.25.10 with SMTP id y10mr2623815lbf.61.1432152285704; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.28.131 with HTTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D016088461E@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <20150408163432.11134.87121.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D016088461E@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:04:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133d14840f884051688f0d0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "ippm@ietf.org" , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:04:49 -0000 --001a1133d14840f884051688f0d0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Again, just following up ... On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > Hi Stephen, > a reply to your comment from a non-author--*wamp-watcher below, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:35 PM > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Since you're touching on the key managment code, I'd have loved to see > > you also update the O/TWAMP crypto itself to e.g. > > use an AEAD cipher rather than AES-CBC. Did the WG consider that? (I > > assume it's too late now, but I'm not clear from the write-up if this is > > implemented or not, so I guess there's a small chance that the WG may > > want to update more than just the key mgmt.) > > > > The IPsec feature is an optional capability, and that's the scope limit of > the draft, so it falls far short of replacing the current crypto features. > > Way back in , I investigated using a "more > conventional" > crypto for TWAMP (at least for the Control connection) > and asked whether the WG was interested - no takers. > Pasi Eronen (SEC AD at the time) had encouraged the > investigation/question2wg > following the IESG review/approval of the TWAMP spec. > At some future time, the answer might be different. I saw Al's response to Stephen's Discuss, but I haven't seen anything further from the authors. Could someone let us know if Al's response is the one we should be discussing with Stephen? Thanks, Spencer > Al > > > --001a1133d14840f884051688f0d0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Again, just following up ...=C2=A0

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM, MORTON, = ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
a reply to your comment from a non-author--*wamp-watcher below,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:35 PM
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
>
> Since you're touching on the key managment code, I'd have love= d to see
> you also update the O/TWAMP crypto itself to e.g.
> use an AEAD cipher rather than AES-CBC. Did the WG consider that? (I > assume it's too late now, but I'm not clear from the write-up = if this is
> implemented or not, so I guess there's a small chance that the WG = may
> want to update more than just the key mgmt.)
>

The IPsec feature is an optional capability, and that's the scop= e limit of
the draft, so it falls far short of replacing the current crypto features.<= br>
Way back in <IETF meeting after Dublin>, I investigated using a "= ;more conventional"
crypto for TWAMP (at least for the Control connection)
and asked whether the WG was interested - no takers.
Pasi Eronen (SEC AD at the time) had encouraged the investigation/question2= wg
following the IESG review/approval of the TWAMP spec.
At some future time, the answer might be different.

I saw Al's response to Stephen's Discuss, but I haven'= t seen anything further from the authors. Could someone let us know if Al&#= 39;s response is the one we should be discussing with Stephen?
Thanks,

Spencer
=C2=A0
Al



--001a1133d14840f884051688f0d0-- From nobody Wed May 20 13:12:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3067C1A9008; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 dvA9jDhgMzCO; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) (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 A0F271A9078; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so2970561lbb.2; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jynkg3hBjUZWaw78jKGI5TYjpVVbOQc5pWJd7pFXg2c=; b=ySMU+Xtnqn7+RMhgf2oI9V1DPv55cj/atTScE4qX2qR31LNPR/aoxFJakOJPgGGE/q VgoU09Nmi61pRaYQ5XFMDNiO60kEY7uo75gpxFVJSJhbSDUY2ivFqbptlYc3setzZ55S hfouXql1F8U3TzCoI6yHncj72401KuPb+kshXG4NYkgqtuCeiR1X7ivhDWykJP4IM8b9 +GJBQ8oUSuQggceRPSGgZIGL4WKGpx3Sud72/GxjeganumTcZCwF2njDU8CqMDcSQnT/ WviuJXRbjEizlYWXus/wI6EPafVkoZtTbCauKCVlqMVVgm1NSbaY35N+WXBCQHBD/pbT Kjpg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.204.199 with SMTP id la7mr188163lbc.114.1432152768173; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.28.131 with HTTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:12:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> References: <20150406125432.16951.24372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78920@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78987@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:12:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bb3002dc120516890dc4 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "MORTON, ALFRED C \(AL\)" , "ippm@ietf.org" , The IESG Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:12:57 -0000 --001a11c3bb3002dc120516890dc4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Still following up ... On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi All, > > On 4/6/15 12:44 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > ... > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > >> ... > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> DISCUSS: > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> I hope this is a short discussion and I can change my ballot to a > >> Yes... > >>> > >>> The applicability section says "Until an IANA registry for OWAMP Mode > >>> values is established, the use this feature in OWAMP implementations > >>> MUST be arranged privately among consenting OWAMP users." > >>> > >>> Is there an issue with this document creating that registry? Or, if > >>> separation is needed, a companion document spun quickly to create this > >>> registry? > >> [ACM] > >> > >> I can spin-up a companion doc to create the OWAMP registry, should be > >> posted in about an hour. > >> > >> Al > >> > >> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00 > > > > took a little longer than an hour, we had a power outage here. > > This memo suggests the (new) assignment for IPsec mode in the draft IESG > > is considering, so perhaps IPsec-09 can continue on its way. > > I will cut you some slack on the 1-hour promise given your power outage. :) > > One issue we have is that IPsec-09 can't be published before your draft > is approved and the IANA creates the registry. > > The text in IPsec-09 should be updated to reflect the soon-to-be > existence of the registry. > > This is the point where the shepherding AD and WG should chime in. I see that Al submitted draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry . Does the WG think they're adding a normative dependency to that draft? If so, we can move on, although if the working group requests publication for that draft, things would happen more quickly ... Spencer > > --001a11c3bb3002dc120516890dc4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Still following up ...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
Hi A= ll,

On 4/6/15 12:44 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
> ...
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ippm [mailto:ip= pm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
>> ...
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------= --------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------= --------
>>>
>>> I hope this is a short discussion and I can change my ballot t= o a
>> Yes...
>>>
>>> The applicability section says "Until an IANA registry fo= r OWAMP Mode
>>> values is established, the use this feature in OWAMP implement= ations
>>> MUST be arranged privately among consenting OWAMP users."=
>>>
>>> Is there an issue with this document creating that registry?= =C2=A0 Or, if
>>> separation is needed, a companion document spun quickly to cre= ate this
>>> registry?
>> [ACM]
>>
>> I can spin-up a companion doc to create the OWAMP registry, should= be
>> posted in about an hour.
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-r= egistry-00
>
> took a little longer than an hour, we had a power outage here.
> This memo suggests the (new) assignment for IPsec mode in the draft IE= SG
> is considering, so perhaps IPsec-09 can continue on its way.

I will cut you some slack on the 1-hour promise given your powe= r outage. :)

One issue we have is that IPsec-09 can't be published before your draft=
is approved and the IANA creates the registry.

The text in IPsec-09 should be updated to reflect the soon-to-be
existence of the registry.

This is the point where the shepherding AD and WG should chime in.

I see that Al submitted=C2=A0dra= ft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry. Does the WG think they're adding a n= ormative dependency to that draft?=C2=A0

If so, we= can move on, although if the working group requests publication for that d= raft, things would happen more quickly ...

Spencer= =C2=A0
=C2=A0

--001a11c3bb3002dc120516890dc4-- From nobody Wed May 20 13:47:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D8F1A90EA; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 SN87htYqmJcj; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61221A90DB; Wed, 20 May 2015 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150520204754.19827.89652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:47:54 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:47:56 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Authors : Jonas Hedin Greg Mirsky Steve Baillargeon Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2015-05-20 Abstract: This document describes an OPTIONAL extension for Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) allowing the monitoring of the Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification fields with the TWAMP-Test protocol. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed May 20 19:04:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2D51ACE58 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 OFLc9HM-kehy for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B5591ACE36 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BSU06031; Thu, 21 May 2015 02:04:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 21 May 2015 03:04:12 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.243]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:04:06 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AQHQkvOhfWCjujHe3U6au7+2poMGBZ2FrreQ Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 02:04:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <9240DA6C-E1BD-4385-A146-A463FE30283C@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 02:04:15 -0000 Support the adoption and will review the document. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7:50 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > As discussed in Dallas, we'd like to ask the IP Performance Metrics Worki= ng > Group to consider adopting the following milestone: >=20 > Submit draft on an IPv6 Destination Option for performance and diagnostic > measurement to the IESG as Proposed Standard (Mar 2016) >=20 > and to consider adopting draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 as the basi= s of > a working group document for this milestone. >=20 > Please indicate whether or not you would be in favor of taking this work = on, and > if so, if you will review the document within the WG. This call for adopt= ion will > run until Thursday 4 June 2015. >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (wearing a chair hat) From nobody Fri May 29 00:04:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8061A0470 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 XtREpZFAmGBH for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DDF81A0115 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 29 May 2015 09:04:29 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,515,1427752800"; d="scan'208";a="270716761" Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 29 May 2015 09:04:29 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:04:28 +0200 From: To: Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:04:27 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Thread-Index: AdB9nnoqjgxP7fc3QN66WtijVTTwDQPshhGw Message-ID: References: <4456E087-4C40-48CD-B0BC-7CB53EAE4469@trammell.ch> <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:04:35 -0000 Brian I've sent a commented version of the draft to the authors and read some mor= e lines. I personally would appreciate if the authors were able to refer to terminol= ogy and metrics already specified by IPPM. Spatial metrics, delay and capac= ity measurements, constant rate measurements, RT measurements and metric co= mposition - if the authors just identify missing terminology and metrics wh= ich require adaptation or need to be introduced, I think only a limited set= of additional metrics and new terminology is required.=20 I think the document contains a lot of useful information. It should be sep= arated in several sections explaining the basic idea of the measurement, an= explantation of the measurement and finally the metrics. By now all this i= nformation is mixed. TCP specifics still occur in sections 5 and 6 (I think= , they shouldn't occur after the measurement idea has been explained). Furt= her, unnecessary and duplicate explanations and duplicate terminology shoul= d be removed. The draft contains a lot of terminology. I'm not a TCP expert= and I can't easily judge whether some terminology accidentally sounds iden= tical or whether there are small but important differences between two term= s. Check different "rates" and "window or pipe" related terminology through= the document, if you look for examples. As an example of an irritating text, look at the following:=20 Repeated Slowstart bursts: Slowstart bursts are typically part of larger scale pattern of repeated bursts, such as sending target_pipe_size packets as slowstart bursts on a target_RTT headway (burst start to burst start). Such a stream has three different average rates, depending on the averaging interval. At the finest time scale the average rate is the same as the sender interface rate, at a medium scale the average rate is twice the effective bottleneck link rate and at the longest time scales the average rate is equal to the target data rate. In IP networks, the averaging interval in general impacts the measured rate= . I'm a bit clueless what a fine, medium and long timescale may be. So thi= s text requires concentrated reading to get what is or may be meant. I thin= k, this section defines capacity measurements,=20 IP-type-P Link Capacity We define the IP-layer link capacity, C(L,T,I), to be the maximum number of IP-layer bits that can be transmitted from the source S and correctly received by the destination D over the link L during the interval [T, T+I], divided by I. "I" is the variable, "fine" I is related to the burst length at sender int= erface rate, and "long" I may be RTT or RTT/2 (I didn't figure it out corre= ctly) and "medium" I is related to the bottleneck rate and the burst size, = but certainly could be expressed in a formula (if these three rates are req= uired and can be measured). I also think that there are assumptions about a= bottleneck rate <=3D sender interface rate and about the RTT.=20 If these three rates can't be measured or aren't required, the text should = be moved to a section explaining the measurement idea (and better explained= there) or removed entirely. Regards, Ruediger -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Brian Trammell Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2015 10:17 An: ippm@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Greetings, all, Seeing no comment on this WGLC, we will extend the WGLC by two weeks, now t= o end next Friday, 1 May 2015. *Please* review and comment on the draft to the ippm@ietf.org list. Thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) > On 27 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > Working Group Last Call has started on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metric= s. Please provide final comments on this document to the IPPM working group= list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 17 April 2015. >=20 > (Note, given that many in the room who had read previous revisions of thi= s document indicated they had not reviewed the latest, this is a three week= WGLC to allow additional reading time.) >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Fri May 29 06:03:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2B81A8963; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:02:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 32pMN1zSATrY; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141351A893F; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150529130258.26559.92237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 06:02:58 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-10.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:02:59 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP Authors : Kostas Pentikousis Emma Zhang Yang Cui Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-10.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-05-29 Abstract: The One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) security mechanisms require that both the client and server endpoints possess a shared secret. This document describes the use of keys derived from an IKEv2 security association (SA) as the shared key in O/TWAMP. If the shared key can be derived from the IKEv2 SA, O/TWAMP can support certificate-based key exchange, which would allow for more operational flexibility and efficiency. The key derivation presented in this document can also facilitate automatic key management. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-10 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri May 29 06:16:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5FD1A8A63; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:16:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 7pEkyEJcuD33; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56C71A8A5F; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id CA9861FF67; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6113C1FF5F; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9A1378057; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:15:00 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: Barry Leiba , The IESG Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:14:59 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AdBxZR7sIRRc71LGSk+otq3HvVYBxAoq1iWQ Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AED@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150407182944.23896.50197.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150407182944.23896.50197.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:16:21 -0000 RGVhciBCYXJyeSwgYWxsLA0KDQpXZSBoYXZlIHVwZGF0ZWQgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLWlwc2Vj IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgYWxsIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlY2VpdmVkIGluIHRoZSBsYXN0IHJvdW5kIG9mIHJl dmlldyAoc2VlIHRoZSBkaWZmIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMT1k cmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMtMDkmdXJsMj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMtMTApLiAN Cg0KPHNuaXA+DQoNCnwgR2VuZXJhbDogdGhlICJpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgY29tcGF0aWJsZSB3 aXRoIHRoaXMgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiIgc3R1ZmYgaXMNCnwgcmVhbGx5IGF3a3dhcmQgYW5kIHVu bmVjZXNzYXJ5LiAgSXQgd291bGQgYmUgYmV0dGVyIGlmIGl0IHdlcmUgY2hhbmdlZCB0bw0KfCAi aW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIG9mIHRoaXMgbWV0aG9kIiAoYW5kIHNpbWlsYXIgcGhyYXNpbmcsIHN1 Y2ggYXMgImNsaWVudHMNCnwgaW1wbGVtZW50aW5nIHRoaXMgbWV0aG9kIikgdGhyb3VnaG91dCB0 aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQoNCkRvbmUuDQoNCnwgLS0gU2VjdGlvbiAzIC0tDQoNCjxzbmlwPg0KDQp8 IE5FVw0KfCAgICBUV0FNUCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgc2lnbmFsIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhpcyBt ZXRob2QgYnkgc2V0dGluZw0KfCAgICBJS0V2MkRlcml2ZWQgKHNlZSBTZWN0aW9uIDcpLg0KfCBF TkQNCg0KRG9uZS4NCg0KfCBQbGVhc2UgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGRldGFpbHMgb2YgdGhlIHJlZ2lzdHJ5 LCBhbmQgd2hpY2ggYml0IHdhcyBhc3NpZ25lZCwgdG8gdGhlDQp8IElBTkEgQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlv bnMgc2VjdGlvbiwgd2hlcmUgdGhhdCBzdHVmZiBiZWxvbmdzLiAgVGhlIHJlZmVyZW5jZSB0bw0K fCBTZWN0aW9uIDcgbWFrZXMgaXQgZWFzeSB0byBmaW5kLg0KDQpEb25lLCB3aXRoIHRoZSBoZWxw IG9mIHRoZSBXRyBjaGFpcnMgKG1hbnkgdGhhbmtzISk6IGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMtMTAjc2VjdGlvbi03DQoNCiANCnwgLS0gU2VjdGlv biA1LjIgLS0NCg0KPHNuaXA+DQoNCnwgTkVXDQp8ICAgIFRoZSBNb2RlcyBmaWVsZCBpbiBGaWd1 cmUgMiB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYWxsb3cgZm9yIHN1cHBvcnQgb2Yga2V5DQp8ICAgIGRlcml2YXRp b24gYXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNS4xLiAgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCB3aGVuIHRoaXMNCnwg ICAgbWV0aG9kIGlzIHVzZWQsIHRoZSBNb2RlcyB2YWx1ZSBleHRlbnNpb24gTVVTVCBiZSBzdXBw b3J0ZWQuDQp8ICAgIFN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGRlcml2aW5nIHRoZSBzaGFyZWQga2V5IGZyb20gdGhl IElLRXYyIFNBIGlzIGluZGljYXRlZA0KfCAgICBieSBzZXR0aW5nIElLRXYyRGVyaXZlZCAoc2Vl IFNlY3Rpb24gNykuICBUaGUgYXV0aGVudGljYXRlZCwNCnwgICAgZW5jcnlwdGVkIGFuZCBtaXhl ZCBtb2RlcyAoc2VlIFtSRkM0NjU2XVtSRkM1MzU3XVtSRkM1NjE4XSkgTVVTVA0KfCAgICBhbHNv IGJlIHN1cHBvcnRlZC4NCnwgRU5EDQoNCkRvbmUsIHdpdGggdGhlIGV4Y2VwdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUg bGFzdCBzZW50ZW5jZSwgd2hpY2ggd2FzIHJlbW92ZWQgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyBCZW4gQ2FtcGJlbGwn cyBjb21tZW50ICgiV2h5IGRvZXMgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBJS0V2MiBjcmVhdGUgYSBzdHJvbmdlciBy ZXF1aXJlbWVudCB0byBzdXBwb3J0IGFsbCAzIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gbW9kZXM/IikNCg0KQmVzdCBy ZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpLb3N0YXMNCg== From nobody Fri May 29 06:37:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9ACA1A8AAC; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 IutWpjzhcWvl; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA9E1A8966; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id 4CB901FF67; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE101FF5F; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828993780A2; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:35:59 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: Ben Campbell , The IESG Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:35:58 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AdByHt8rcoxgdMw9SDmXb+6QP/9jRgn8sUrg Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AEE@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150407215944.10583.95929.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150407215944.10583.95929.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:37:20 -0000 RGVhciBCZW4sIGFsbCwNCg0KTWFueSB0aGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBkZXRhaWxlZCByZXZpZXcuDQoN Cg0KfCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQp8IERJU0NVU1M6DQp8IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCnwgDQp8IElu IHRoZSBsYXN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCwgdGhlIHRleHQgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRoYXQgaWYgdGhlIElLRXYy IFNBIGlzIHJla2V5ZWQgb3INCnwgZGVsZXRlZCwgTy9UV0FNUCBjYW4gY29udGludWUgdG8gdXNl IHRoZSBzYW1lIHNoYXJlZCBzZWNyZXQuIFRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZQ0KfCBzZWVtcyB0byBtYWtlIHN1 Y2ggYSBjb250aW51YW5jZSBvcHRpb25hbC4gRG9lcyB0aGF0IGNhdXNlIGFuIGludGVyb3BlcmFi aWxpdHkNCnwgcHJvYmxlbSBpZiB0aGUgZW5kcG9pbnRzIGRvbid0IGFncmVlIG9uIHRoZSBzdHJh dGVneT8NCnwgDQp8IElmIHNvLCB0aGlzIG1heSBuZWVkIGEgMjExOSBNVVNUIChvciBwb3NzaWJs eSBTSE9VTEQpLg0KfCANCg0KRG9uZSwgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IG5vdyByZWFkczogDQoNCiAgIElm IHJla2V5aW5nIGZvciB0aGUgSUtFdjIgU0Egb3IgZGVsZXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIElLRXYyIFNBIG9j Y3VycywgdGhlDQogICBjb3JyZXNwb25kaW5nIHNoYXJlZCBzZWNyZXQga2V5IGdlbmVyYXRlZCBm cm9tIHRoZSBTQSBNVVNUIGNvbnRpbnVlDQogICB0byBiZSB1c2VkIHVudGlsIHRoZSBPL1RXQU1Q IHNlc3Npb24gdGVybWluYXRlcy4NCg0KfCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQp8IENPTU1FTlQ6DQp8IC0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCnwgDQp8IFNlY3Rpb24gMSwgcGFyYWdyYXBoIDQ6DQp8IA0KfCBUaGlzIHBh cmFncmFwaCBjYXN0cyB0aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gd2hldGhlciB0byBzZW5kIE8vVFdBTVAgaW5zaWRl IG9yIG91dHNpZGUgb2YNCnwgYW4gSVBTZWMgdHVubmVsIGFzIGEgcXVlc3Rpb24gb2YgaG93IHlv dSB3YW50IHRvIHNlY3VyZSB0aGUgTy9UV0FNUCBwYWNrZXRzLg0KfCBJdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0 aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgcmVhbGx5IG1vcmUgYSBtYXR0ZXIgb2Ygd2hhdCB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBtZWFz dXJlLA0KfCBnaXZlbiB0aGF0IHRoZSB0dW5uZWxlZCBkYXRhIGFuZCBub24tdHVubmVsZWQgZGF0 YSBtYXkgaGF2ZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQNCnwgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgY2FwYWJpbGl0aWVzLg0KDQpFZGl0 ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nbHksIGFuZCBub3cgdGhlIHRleHQgcmVhZHM6DQoNCiAgIEluIGdlbmVyYWws IE8vVFdBTVAgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgcGFja2V0cyBjYW4gYmUgdHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQgaW5zaWRlIHRo ZQ0KICAgSVBzZWMgdHVubmVsLCBhcyBpdCBvY2N1cnMgd2l0aCB0eXBpY2FsIHVzZXIgdHJhZmZp Yywgb3IgdHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQNCiAgIG91dHNpZGUgdGhlIElQc2VjIHR1bm5lbC4gIFRoaXMgbWF5 IGRlcGVuZCBvbiB0aGUgb3BlcmF0b3IncyBwb2xpY3kNCiAgIGFuZCB0aGUgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2Ug ZXZhbHVhdGlvbiBnb2FsLCBhbmQgaXMgb3J0aG9nb25hbCB0byB0aGUNCiAgIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBk ZXNjcmliZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4gIFdoZW4gSVBzZWMgaXMgZGVwbG95ZWQsDQo8c25p cD4NCg0KfCANCnwgU2VudGVuY2Ugc3RhcnRpbmcgd2l0aCAiSW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlLi4uIjogVGhl IGFudGVjZWRlbnQgb2YgInRoaXMiIGlzIHVuY2xlYXIuDQoNCkRvbmUuDQoNCnwgDQp8IFNlY3Rp b24gMSwgMm5kIHRvIGxhc3QgcGFyYWdyYXBoOg0KfCANCnwgSSBhc3N1bWUgdGhlIGxhc3Qgc2Vu dGVuY2UgbWVhbnMgdGhhdCBJS0V2MiBkZXJpdmVkIGtleXMgU0hPVUxEIGJlIHVzZWQNCnwgaW5z dGVhZCBvZiBzaGFyZWQgc2VjcmV0cyB3aGVuIG90aGVyd2lzZSB1c2luZyBJS0V2Mi4gVGhhdCBz ZWVtcyB0byBhZGQgYQ0KfCBub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgdG8gT1dBTVAgYW5kIFRXQU1Q IGluIGdlbmVyYWwsIGluIHdoaWNoIGNhc2UgdGhpcyBkb2MNCnwgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGxpc3RlZCBh cyB1cGRhdGluZyB0aG9zZS4NCg0KQWdyZWVkLg0KDQo8c25pcD4NCg0KfCANCnwgU2VjdGlvbiA0 LjE6DQp8IA0KfCBQbGVhc2UgZXhwYW5kIEhNQUMgb24gZmlyc3QgbWVudGlvbi4NCg0KRG9uZS4N Cg0KfCBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMToNCnwgDQp8ICJTS19kIE1VU1QgYmUgY29tcHV0ZWQgYXMgcGVyIFty ZWZdIiA6VGhhdCBkb2Vzbid0IG5lZWQgMjExOSBsYW5ndWFnZS4NCnwgDQp8ICJzdHJpbmcgIklQ UE0iIGNvbXByaXNlcyBmb3VyIEFTQ0lJIGNoYXJhY3RlcnMgIjogVGhpcyBpcyBvZGRseSBjb25z dHJ1Y3RlZC4NCnwgSXMgdGhpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCB0byBvYnNlcnZlIHRoYXQgSVBQTSBoYXMgNCBs ZXR0ZXJzPw0KfCANCg0KDQpEb25lLg0KDQoNCnwgU2VjdGlvbiA1LjIsIHBhcmFncmFwaCBhZnRl ciBGaWd1cmUgMjogIkNsZWFybHksIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIC4uLi4NCnwgTVVTVCAuLi4i DQp8IA0KfCBJdCBpcyBub3QgYXMgY2xlYXIgdG8gbWUuIFdoeSBkb2VzIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgSUtF djIgY3JlYXRlIGEgc3Ryb25nZXINCnwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBhbGwgMyBwcm90 ZWN0aW9uIG1vZGVzPw0KDQpJbmRlZWQuIFRoZSBzZW50ZW5jZSB3YXMgcmVtb3ZlZC4NCg0KDQp8 IFNlY3Rpb24gNS4zOiwgZmlyc3QgcGFyYWdyYXBoOg0KfCANCnwgIlRoZSBTZXQtVXAtUmVzcG9u c2UgTWVzc2FnZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdXBkYXRlZCI6IERvIHlvdSBtZWFuIHRvIHNheSBpdCBfaXNf DQp8IHVwZGF0ZWQ/DQp8IA0KfCBQYXJhZ3JhcGggYWZ0ZXIgZmlndXJlIDM6DQp8IA0KfCBzLyAi Y2FuIHVuaXF1ZWx5IGlkZW50aWZ5IiAvICJ1bmlxdWVseSBpZGVudGlmaWVzIg0KfCANCkRvbmUu DQoNCnwgNS40LCBsYXN0IHNlbnRlbmNlOg0KfCANCnwgVGhlIHNlbnRlbmNlIGlzIGNvbmZ1c2lu Zy4gRG8geW91IG1lYW4gdG8gc2F5IHRoYXQgTy9UV0FNUCBTSE9VTEQgYmUNCnwgY29uZmlndXJl ZCB0byB1c2UgdGhlIHR1bm5lbD8NCnwgDQoNClRoZSB3YXMgc29tZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGVhcmxp ZXIgaW4gdGhlIFdHIGFuZCB0aGF0J3Mgd2h5IHNlYy4gNS40IHdhcyBhZGRlZC4gV2UgaGF2ZSBu b3cgZWRpdGVkIHRoZSBsYXN0IHNlbnRlbmNlIHRvIHJlYWQ6DQoNCiAgIEluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGVu c3VyZQ0KICAgYXV0aGVudGljaXR5IGFuZCBzZWN1cml0eSwgTy9UV0FNUCBwYWNrZXRzIGJldHdl ZW4gdHdvIElLRXYyIHN5c3RlbXMNCiAgIFNIT1VMRCBiZSBjb25maWd1cmVkIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUg Y29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBJUHNlYyB0dW5uZWwgcnVubmluZw0KICAgb3ZlciBhbiBleHRlcm5hbCBu ZXR3b3JrIGV2ZW4gd2hlbiB1c2luZyB0aGUgTy9UV0FNUCB1bmF1dGhlbnRpY2F0ZWQNCiAgIG1v ZGUuDQoNCg0KQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpLb3N0YXMNCg== From nobody Fri May 29 06:43:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061B81A8AE7; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:43:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 hKbBgKkQh0Ai; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785811A8AE1; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id DF3761FF6C; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:43:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8951B1FF6A; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:43:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFDC3780A2; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:43:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:41:51 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:41:50 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AdByHt8y6yKFEJqCSUOJdN/6+To6ZQn9bMzw Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AEF@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150408163432.11134.87121.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150408163432.11134.87121.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:43:11 -0000 RGVhciBTdGVwaGVuLCBhbGwsDQp8IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCnwgRElTQ1VTUzoNCnwgLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLQ0KfCANCnwgDQp8IEFyZSBPL1RXQU1QIHZ1bG5lcmFibGUgdG8gcmVmbGVjdGlvbiBh dHRhY2tzIHdpdGggdGhpcyBzY2hlbWU/DQp8IElmIHNvIHRoYXQncyBub3QgZ29vZC4gU29ycnkg dGhhdCBJIGRpZG4ndCBtYW5hZ2UgdG8gZmlndXJlIHRoYXQgb3V0IGluIHRoZQ0KfCB0aW1lIGF2 YWlsYWJsZSBidXQgSSdtIGhvcGluZyB5b3UgY2FuIGp1c3QgdGVsbCBtZSB0aGUgYW5zd2VyIHF1 aWNrbHk6LSkgSWYNCnwgaXQncyBub3QgdnVsbmVyYWJsZSwgdGhhdCdzIGdyZWF0IHRob3VnaCBp dCBtaWdodCBiZSB3b3J0aCBtYWtpbmcgdGhhdA0KfCBjbGVhcmVyLiBJZiBpdCBpcywgdGhlbiB0 aGF0IHNlZW1zIGxpa2UgYSBiYWQgcGxhbiBhYm91dCB3aGljaCB3ZSBvdWdodCBjaGF0Lg0KfCBU aGUgdXN1YWwgc29sdXRpb24gd291bGQgYmUgdG8gZGVyaXZlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBrZXlzIGZvciBl YWNoIGRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZg0KfCB1c2UsIGFuZCBqdXN0IHNheSB0byB1c2UgdGhvc2UgYXBwcm9w cmlhdGVseS4NCnwgQW5kIGV2ZW4gaWYgTy9UV0FNUCBhcmUgdGh1c2x5IHZ1bG5lcmFibGUgd2l0 aCBhIFBTSywgaXQnZCBiZSBmaW5lLCBhbmQgcXVpdGUNCnwgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gZml4IHRoYXQg aGVyZSBub3cgd2UncmUgZG9pbmcgYmV0dGVyIGtleSBtZ210Lg0KfCANCg0KTm8sIGl0J3Mgbm90 IHZ1bG5lcmFibGUuIFRoZSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGluIFJGQzQ2NTYgYW5kIFJGQzU2 MTggYXJlIGFsbCBiYXNlZCBvbiBQU0suIFRoaXMgZHJhZnQgb25seSBwcm9wb3NlZCB0byBkZXJp dmUgUFNLIGZyb20gSUtFdjIgU0EuDQoNCg0KfCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQp8IENPTU1FTlQ6DQp8 IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCnwgDQp8IA0KfCBTaW5jZSB5b3UncmUgdG91Y2hpbmcgb24gdGhlIGtl eSBtYW5hZ21lbnQgY29kZSwgSSdkIGhhdmUgbG92ZWQgdG8gc2VlIHlvdQ0KfCBhbHNvIHVwZGF0 ZSB0aGUgTy9UV0FNUCBjcnlwdG8gaXRzZWxmIHRvIGUuZy4NCnwgdXNlIGFuIEFFQUQgY2lwaGVy IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIEFFUy1DQkMuIERpZCB0aGUgV0cgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhhdD8gKEkgYXNzdW1l DQp8IGl0J3MgdG9vIGxhdGUgbm93LCBidXQgSSdtIG5vdCBjbGVhciBmcm9tIHRoZSB3cml0ZS11 cCBpZiB0aGlzIGlzIGltcGxlbWVudGVkDQp8IG9yIG5vdCwgc28gSSBndWVzcyB0aGVyZSdzIGEg c21hbGwgY2hhbmNlIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIG1heSB3YW50IHRvIHVwZGF0ZSBtb3JlDQp8IHRoYW4g anVzdCB0aGUga2V5IG1nbXQuKQ0KDQpUaGlzIGRyYWZ0IGRvZXMgbm90IHVwZGF0ZSB0aGUgTy9U V0FNUCBjcnlwdG8sIHdoaWNoIGlzIHN0aWxsIGFzIGRlZmluZWQgYXMgcGVyIFJGQzQ2NTYgYW5k IFJGQzU2MTguIFNvIHRoaXMgaXMgb3V0IG9mIHNjb3BlIGZvciB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KDQpC ZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCktvc3Rhcw0K From nobody Fri May 29 06:45:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83DA1A8BB2; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 elEzQJX_-fdF; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D7C1A8BB6; Fri, 29 May 2015 06:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id 799981FF6F; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313AF1FF6B; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF1B3780A2; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:45:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:43:44 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , Stephen Farrell , The IESG Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:43:42 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AdByHt81JoWzx1tASK+87TqgBMDEOAn9l6mw Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AF0@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150408163432.11134.87121.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D016088461E@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D016088461E@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:45:03 -0000 Hi Al, all, | Way back in , I investigated using a "more | conventional" | crypto for TWAMP (at least for the Control connection) | and asked whether the WG was interested - no takers. | Pasi Eronen (SEC AD at the time) had encouraged the investigation/questio= n2wg | following the IESG review/approval of the TWAMP spec. | At some future time, the answer might be different. I think once this draft is done, we could put some effort to work on this. = I would be interested in contributing at least. Best regards, Kostas From nobody Fri May 29 07:39:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79BD1A924A; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 ZePfYiMMPiVo; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDCA1A923B; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id 05D951FF67; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:39:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F3A1FF5F; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFCB378057; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:38:24 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF , Brian Haberman , "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:38:23 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AdCTPh5JyU2louXqRMWjSy0+nuyfywG2u6uA Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AFD@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150406125432.16951.24372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78920@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78987@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:39:45 -0000 RGVhciBCcmlhbiwgU3BlbmNlciwgQWwsIGFsbCwNCg0KDQp8IFN0aWxsIGZvbGxvd2luZyB1cCAu Li4NCg0KPHNuaXA+DQoNCnwgPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1tb3J0 b24taXBwbS1vd2FtcC1yZWdpc3RyeS0wMA0KfCA+DQp8ID4gdG9vayBhIGxpdHRsZSBsb25nZXIg dGhhbiBhbiBob3VyLCB3ZSBoYWQgYSBwb3dlciBvdXRhZ2UgaGVyZS4NCnwgPiBUaGlzIG1lbW8g c3VnZ2VzdHMgdGhlIChuZXcpIGFzc2lnbm1lbnQgZm9yIElQc2VjIG1vZGUgaW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0 IElFU0cNCnwgPiBpcyBjb25zaWRlcmluZywgc28gcGVyaGFwcyBJUHNlYy0wOSBjYW4gY29udGlu dWUgb24gaXRzIHdheS4NCnwgSSB3aWxsIGN1dCB5b3Ugc29tZSBzbGFjayBvbiB0aGUgMS1ob3Vy IHByb21pc2UgZ2l2ZW4geW91ciBwb3dlciBvdXRhZ2UuIDopDQp8DQp8IE9uZSBpc3N1ZSB3ZSBo YXZlIGlzIHRoYXQgSVBzZWMtMDkgY2FuJ3QgYmUgcHVibGlzaGVkIGJlZm9yZSB5b3VyIGRyYWZ0 DQp8IGlzIGFwcHJvdmVkIGFuZCB0aGUgSUFOQSBjcmVhdGVzIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyeS4NCg0KPGRy YWZ0IGVkaXRvciBoYXQgb24+SSB0aGluayB0aGlzIHdvdWxkIGFkZCBhIHNpZ25pZmljYW50IGRl bGF5LCBhbmQgd291bGQgdm90ZSB0byBhdm9pZCBpdDwvaGF0IG9mZj4NCg0KDQp8IFRoZSB0ZXh0 IGluIElQc2VjLTA5IHNob3VsZCBiZSB1cGRhdGVkIHRvIHJlZmxlY3QgdGhlIHNvb24tdG8tYmUN CnwgZXhpc3RlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyeS4NCg0KTm8gaGF2ZSBub3QgZG9uZSB0aGlzIGlu IC0xMC4gDQoNCkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBCcmlhbiB0aGF0ICJUaGUgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eSBzcGVj aWZpZWQgaGVyZSBzZWVtcyBxdWl0ZSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHRvIE9XQU1QIGFuZCByZXF1aXJpbmcg cHJpdmF0ZSBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzIHRvIHVzZSBpdCBzZWVtcyBzdWItb3B0aW1hbC4iIFRoZSBpc3N1 ZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBPV0FNUCByZWdpc3RyeSAob3IgbGFjayB0aGVyZW9mKSB3YXMgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk IGEgZmV3IHRpbWVzIGluIHRoZSBXRywgaGVuY2UgdGhpcyBwYXJhZ3JhcGggd2FzIGFkZGVkOiAN Cg0KICAgQWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlIGNvbnRyb2wgcHJvY2VkdXJlcyBkZXNjcmliZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBk b2N1bWVudCBhcmUNCiAgIGFwcGxpY2FibGUgdG8gT1dBTVAgcGVyIHNlLCB0aGUgbGFjayBvZiBh biBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCBJQU5BIHJlZ2lzdHJ5DQogICBmb3IgT1dBTVAgTW9kZSB2YWx1ZXMgYWtp biB0byB0aGF0IGxpc3RlZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDcgdGVjaG5pY2FsbHkNCiAgIHByZXZlbnRzIHVz IGZyb20gZXh0ZW5kaW5nIE9XQU1QIE1vZGUgdmFsdWVzLiAgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBpbmRlcGVuZGVu dA0KICAgT1dBTVAgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIFNIT1VMRCBiZSBjaGVja2VkIGZvciBmdWxsIGNv bXBhdGliaWxpdHkgd2l0aA0KICAgcmVzcGVjdCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoaXMgTW9kZSB2YWx1 ZS4gIFVudGlsIGFuIElBTkEgcmVnaXN0cnkgZm9yDQogICBPV0FNUCBNb2RlIHZhbHVlcyBpcyBl c3RhYmxpc2hlZCwgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGlzIGZlYXR1cmUgaW4gT1dBTVANCiAgIGltcGxlbWVu dGF0aW9ucyBNVVNUIGJlIGFycmFuZ2VkIHByaXZhdGVseSBhbW9uZyBjb25zZW50aW5nIE9XQU1Q DQogICB1c2Vycy4NCg0KSSB0aGluayBpdCB3aWxsIGFsc28gYmUgc3Vib3B0aW1hbCBpZiB0aGlz IGRyYWZ0IGlzIGJsb2NrZWQgZm9yIHNldmVyYWwgbW9udGhzIHRpbGwgZHJhZnQtbW9ydG9uLWlw cG0tb3dhbXAtcmVnaXN0cnkgYmVjb21lcyBhbiBSRkMuIFBlcmhhcHMgYW4gYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUg cGF0aCBjb3VsZCBiZSB0byBrZWVwIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBzZW50ZW5jZSBvbmx5LCBhbmQgdGhlbiBk cmFmdC1tb3J0b24taXBwbS1vd2FtcC1yZWdpc3RyeSB1cGRhdGVzIGluIGEgc2hvcnQgc2VjdGlv biB0aGlzIChmdXR1cmUpIFJGQyBieSBzcGVjaWZ5aW5nIHRoZSBPV0FNUCBNb2RlIHZhbHVlIHdl IGNhbm5vdCB0ZWNobmljYWxseSBleHRlbmQuIA0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCktvc3Rhcw0K DQpQUzogdGhpcyBkaWRuJ3QgZW5kIHVwIGJlaW5nIGEgc2hvcnQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhZnRlciBh bGwuIA0K From nobody Fri May 29 07:39:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEF41ABB19; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 qw-bxXmmJR2Z; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AACD41A9300; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D351BF03; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:39:47 +0100 (IST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OEIDS5jJtZlf; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:39:47 +0100 (IST) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A03DBED2; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:39:47 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <55687A33.5080105@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:39:47 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kostas Pentikousis , The IESG References: <20150408163432.11134.87121.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AEF@SBS2008.eict.local> In-Reply-To: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AEF@SBS2008.eict.local> OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:39:53 -0000 On 29/05/15 14:41, Kostas Pentikousis wrote: > Dear Stephen, all, | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > | DISCUSS: > | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > | > | | Are O/TWAMP vulnerable to reflection attacks with this scheme? | > If so that's not good. Sorry that I didn't manage to figure that out > in the | time available but I'm hoping you can just tell me the > answer quickly:-) If | it's not vulnerable, that's great though it > might be worth making that | clearer. If it is, then that seems like > a bad plan about which we ought chat. | The usual solution would be > to derive different keys for each direction of | use, and just say to > use those appropriately. | And even if O/TWAMP are thusly vulnerable > with a PSK, it'd be fine, and quite | possible to fix that here now > we're doing better key mgmt. | > > No, it's not vulnerable. The security mechanisms in RFC4656 and > RFC5618 are all based on PSK. This draft only proposed to derive PSK > from IKEv2 SA. Ok thanks - I've cleared. Cheers, S. > > > | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > | COMMENT: > | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > | > | | Since you're touching on the key managment code, I'd have loved > to see you | also update the O/TWAMP crypto itself to e.g. | use an > AEAD cipher rather than AES-CBC. Did the WG consider that? (I assume > | it's too late now, but I'm not clear from the write-up if this is > implemented | or not, so I guess there's a small chance that the WG > may want to update more | than just the key mgmt.) > > This draft does not update the O/TWAMP crypto, which is still as > defined as per RFC4656 and RFC5618. So this is out of scope for this > document. > > Best regards, > > Kostas > From nobody Fri May 29 08:50:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4804C1ACD57; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 d0mIAlKoIo63; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF40A1ACD5E; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAF2121358; Fri, 29 May 2015 12:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770F6F03C7; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:57 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Kostas Pentikousis , Spencer Dawkins at IETF , Brian Haberman Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:56 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AdCTPh5JyU2louXqRMWjSy0+nuyfywG2u6uAAAMMVRA= Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2181@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <20150406125432.16951.24372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78920@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78987@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AFD@SBS2008.eict.local> In-Reply-To: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AFD@SBS2008.eict.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:50:08 -0000 SGkgS29zdGFzLA0Kc2VlIGJlbG93Li4uDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N Cj4gRnJvbTogS29zdGFzIFBlbnRpa291c2lzIFttYWlsdG86ay5wZW50aWtvdXNpc0BlaWN0LmRl XQ0KPiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAyOSwgMjAxNSAxMDozOCBBTQ0KLi4uDQo+IHwgVGhlIHRl eHQgaW4gSVBzZWMtMDkgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHVwZGF0ZWQgdG8gcmVmbGVjdCB0aGUgc29vbi10by1i ZQ0KPiB8IGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgcmVnaXN0cnkuDQo+IA0KPiBObyBoYXZlIG5vdCBkb25l IHRoaXMgaW4gLTEwLg0KPiANCj4gSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIEJyaWFuIHRoYXQgIlRoZSBmdW5jdGlv bmFsaXR5IHNwZWNpZmllZCBoZXJlIHNlZW1zIHF1aXRlDQo+IGFwcGxpY2FibGUgdG8gT1dBTVAg YW5kIHJlcXVpcmluZyBwcml2YXRlIGFncmVlbWVudHMgdG8gdXNlIGl0IHNlZW1zDQo+IHN1Yi1v cHRpbWFsLiIgVGhlIGlzc3VlIHdpdGggdGhlIE9XQU1QIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IChvciBsYWNrIHRoZXJl b2YpIHdhcw0KPiBkaXNjdXNzZWQgYSBmZXcgdGltZXMgaW4gdGhlIFdHLCBoZW5jZSB0aGlzIHBh cmFncmFwaCB3YXMgYWRkZWQ6DQo+IA0KPiAgICBBbHRob3VnaCB0aGUgY29udHJvbCBwcm9jZWR1 cmVzIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFyZQ0KPiAgICBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHRvIE9X QU1QIHBlciBzZSwgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgYW4gZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgSUFOQSByZWdpc3RyeQ0KPiAg ICBmb3IgT1dBTVAgTW9kZSB2YWx1ZXMgYWtpbiB0byB0aGF0IGxpc3RlZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDcg dGVjaG5pY2FsbHkNCj4gICAgcHJldmVudHMgdXMgZnJvbSBleHRlbmRpbmcgT1dBTVAgTW9kZSB2 YWx1ZXMuICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGluZGVwZW5kZW50DQo+ICAgIE9XQU1QIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9u cyBTSE9VTEQgYmUgY2hlY2tlZCBmb3IgZnVsbCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IHdpdGgNCj4gICAgcmVz cGVjdCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoaXMgTW9kZSB2YWx1ZS4gIFVudGlsIGFuIElBTkEgcmVnaXN0 cnkgZm9yDQo+ICAgIE9XQU1QIE1vZGUgdmFsdWVzIGlzIGVzdGFibGlzaGVkLCB0aGUgdXNlIG9m IHRoaXMgZmVhdHVyZSBpbiBPV0FNUA0KPiAgICBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgTVVTVCBiZSBhcnJh bmdlZCBwcml2YXRlbHkgYW1vbmcgY29uc2VudGluZyBPV0FNUA0KPiAgICB1c2Vycy4NCj4gDQo+ IEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgd2lsbCBhbHNvIGJlIHN1Ym9wdGltYWwgaWYgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpcyBibG9j a2VkIGZvciBzZXZlcmFsDQo+IG1vbnRocyB0aWxsIGRyYWZ0LW1vcnRvbi1pcHBtLW93YW1wLXJl Z2lzdHJ5IGJlY29tZXMgYW4gUkZDLiBQZXJoYXBzIGFuDQo+IGFsdGVybmF0aXZlIHBhdGggY291 bGQgYmUgdG8ga2VlcCB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgc2VudGVuY2Ugb25seSwgYW5kIHRoZW4NCj4gZHJhZnQt bW9ydG9uLWlwcG0tb3dhbXAtcmVnaXN0cnkgdXBkYXRlcyBpbiBhIHNob3J0IHNlY3Rpb24gdGhp cw0KPiAoZnV0dXJlKSBSRkMgYnkgc3BlY2lmeWluZyB0aGUgT1dBTVAgTW9kZSB2YWx1ZSB3ZSBj YW5ub3QgdGVjaG5pY2FsbHkNCj4gZXh0ZW5kLg0KPiANCg0KW0FDTV0gSSBhZ3JlZSwgd2Ugc2hv dWxkbid0IGhvbGQtdXAgdGhlIElQc2VjIGRyYWZ0LCBidXQgYWxzbyBvYnNlcnZlDQp0aGF0IGRy YWZ0LW1vcnRvbi1pcHBtLW93YW1wLXJlZ2lzdHJ5LTAwIGlzIGFsbW9zdCAyIG1vbnRocyBvbGQg YW5kIG1pZ2h0DQpoYXZlIHJlYWNoZWQgd2cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIGJ5IG5vdyBpZiB0aGVyZSB3YXMg aW50ZXJlc3Qvc3VwcG9ydCwgZXNwZWNpYWxseQ0KZnJvbSBJUHNlYyBkcmFmdCBhdXRob3JzIDot KSAgDQoNCkJ1dCB0aGF0J3Mgd2F0ZXIgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGJyaWRnZS4gWW91IHNlZW0gdG8gYmUg ZmluaXNoaW5nIHVwIElQc2VjIG9uDQp5b3VyIG93biwgS29zdGFzLCBhbmQgd2UgYWxsIGFwcHJl Y2lhdGUgdGhhdC4gTGV0J3MgZ2V0IHRoZSByZWdpc3RyeSANCnNxdWFyZWQgYXdheSBuZXh0Lg0K DQpOaWNlIHdvcmsgb24gdGhlIElBTkEgc2VjdGlvbiBpbiAtMTAsIHRvby4gDQoNCnJlZ2FyZHMs DQpBbA0KDQoNCg0KDQo= From nobody Fri May 29 08:54:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19901ACD7D; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 xtNSdh9WM4W2; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31DA51ACD7B; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E93088129; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6911071B0001; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55688BCF.3040006@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:54:55 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , Kostas Pentikousis , Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20150406125432.16951.24372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78920@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78987@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AFD@SBS2008.eict.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2181@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2181@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:54:57 -0000 All, On 5/29/15 11:49 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > Hi Kostas, > see below... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kostas Pentikousis [mailto:k.pentikousis@eict.de] >> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:38 AM > ... >> | The text in IPsec-09 should be updated to reflect the soon-to-be >> | existence of the registry. >> >> No have not done this in -10. >> >> I agree with Brian that "The functionality specified here seems quite >> applicable to OWAMP and requiring private agreements to use it seems >> sub-optimal." The issue with the OWAMP registry (or lack thereof) was >> discussed a few times in the WG, hence this paragraph was added: >> >> Although the control procedures described in this document are >> applicable to OWAMP per se, the lack of an established IANA registry >> for OWAMP Mode values akin to that listed in Section 7 technically >> prevents us from extending OWAMP Mode values. Therefore, independent >> OWAMP implementations SHOULD be checked for full compatibility with >> respect to the use of this Mode value. Until an IANA registry for >> OWAMP Mode values is established, the use of this feature in OWAMP >> implementations MUST be arranged privately among consenting OWAMP >> users. >> >> I think it will also be suboptimal if this draft is blocked for several >> months till draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry becomes an RFC. Perhaps an >> alternative path could be to keep the first sentence only, and then >> draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry updates in a short section this >> (future) RFC by specifying the OWAMP Mode value we cannot technically >> extend. >> > > [ACM] I agree, we shouldn't hold-up the IPsec draft, but also observe > that draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00 is almost 2 months old and might > have reached wg consensus by now if there was interest/support, especially > from IPsec draft authors :-) > > But that's water under the bridge. You seem to be finishing up IPsec on > your own, Kostas, and we all appreciate that. Let's get the registry > squared away next. Before we create what could be a weird set of relationships between documents, has anyone polled the WG on their interest in adopting/advancing Al's owamp-registry draft? It appears from the above comment that the WG hasn't been asked about its interest in it, at least formally. Regards, Brian From nobody Fri May 29 08:56:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500301ACD7E; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 HS3M8dTwUM2i; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FD41A8A7E; Fri, 29 May 2015 08:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id 37D9E1FF6A; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAE61FF5F; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:56:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A7F3780A2; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:56:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:55:27 +0200 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:55:26 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AdCTPh5JyU2louXqRMWjSy0+nuyfywG2u6uAAAMMVRAAAHYlAA== Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904B0D@SBS2008.eict.local> References: <20150406125432.16951.24372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78920@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8BA78987@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5522BC93.3020003@innovationslab.net> <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB904AFD@SBS2008.eict.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2181@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2181@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:56:49 -0000 SGkgQWwsDQoNCnwgW0FDTV0gSSBhZ3JlZSwgd2Ugc2hvdWxkbid0IGhvbGQtdXAgdGhlIElQc2Vj IGRyYWZ0LCBidXQgYWxzbyBvYnNlcnZlIHRoYXQNCnwgZHJhZnQtbW9ydG9uLWlwcG0tb3dhbXAt cmVnaXN0cnktMDAgaXMgYWxtb3N0IDIgbW9udGhzIG9sZCBhbmQgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZQ0KfCByZWFj aGVkIHdnIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBieSBub3cgaWYgdGhlcmUgd2FzIGludGVyZXN0L3N1cHBvcnQsIGVz cGVjaWFsbHkgZnJvbQ0KfCBJUHNlYyBkcmFmdCBhdXRob3JzIDotKQ0KDQpNb3N0IGNlcnRhaW5s eSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIGFuZCBzdXBwb3J0aW5nLg0KDQoNCnwgQnV0IHRoYXQncyB3YXRlciB1bmRl ciB0aGUgYnJpZGdlLiBZb3Ugc2VlbSB0byBiZSBmaW5pc2hpbmcgdXAgSVBzZWMgb24geW91cg0K fCBvd24sIEtvc3RhcywgYW5kIHdlIGFsbCBhcHByZWNpYXRlIHRoYXQuIExldCdzIGdldCB0aGUg cmVnaXN0cnkgc3F1YXJlZCBhd2F5DQp8IG5leHQuDQoNCk5vLCB0aGF0J3Mgbm90IHRydWUsIG15 IGNvLWF1dGhvcnMgYXJlIGhlbHBpbmcgdGhyb3VnaG91dCENCg0KDQp8IE5pY2Ugd29yayBvbiB0 aGUgSUFOQSBzZWN0aW9uIGluIC0xMCwgdG9vLg0KDQpBbGwga3Vkb3MgZ28gdG8gQnJpYW4gVHJh bW1lbGwgZm9yICJwaWNraW5nIHVwIHRoZSBiYWxsIiBhbmQgbWFraW5nIHRoZSB0ZXh0IHN1Z2dl c3Rpb24uDQoNCkFsbCB0aGUgYmVzdCwNCg0KS29zdGFzDQoNCg0KDQoNCg==