From rilmae@libero.it Sat Mar 8 06:19:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB99428CFAF for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:19:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.881 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qGh8wZDonJ+3 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out2.libero.it (smtp-out2.libero.it [212.52.84.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF6D2931BA for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 05:49:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from outrelay08.libero.it (192.168.32.103) by smtp-out2.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4688F31B18F16A4C for ippm-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 13:42:43 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoPAOAY0kesHwAn/2dsb2JhbAAIjGCecA Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-out3.libero.it) ([172.31.0.39]) by outrelay08.libero.it with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2008 13:42:43 +0100 Received: from libero.it (192.168.17.2) by smtp-out3.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4628C877005504D3; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 13:42:43 +0100 Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 13:42:43 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: ACKNOWLEDGE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sensitivity: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "rilmae\@libero\.it" X-XaM3-API-Version: 4.3 (R1) (B3pl25) X-SenderIP: 193.152.249.76 To: undisclosed-recipients:; Ref Number:ES-02-14-SA We write to congratulate you, as one of our 13th email lucky winner of ja= nuary 2008 prize award of =80918.656,77. Your email address attached to R= efNumber:ES-02-14-SA, Winning Number 10-12-24-25-41-3+5.To get more info/= claim,contact the Operations officer below with your winning numbers and = refrence number: MR. VICENTE SANCHEZ Tel: 0034-680-658-644 E-mail: infoclienteuros@gmail.com, infoclient@mixmail.com Sincerely yours, Mrs. Elizabeth Maria Co-ordinator. E-mail:infoclienteuros@gmail.com,infoclient@mixmail.com From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:17:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0BC28C34E; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWb7+mc8-CYk; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E5C28C602; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:47:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F116B28C40C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qrIi6jGKp8JU for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B676428C6EE for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3740847F1B for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10142-06 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C24947EE7 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47D551FF.6020700@internet2.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:21:35 -0400 From: Matthew J Zekauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Subject: [ippm] materials for the meeting today / remote participation X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Just a short reminder: The IPPM meeting is today between 15:20 and 17:20 ET in Franklin 5. For those not at the meeting, audio should be available here: see for details. Jabber, should we have a scribe (i'll try to watch for remote questions, anyway) will be in the ippm room at jabber.ietf.org. [Although, I tried just now and it said "room being created". hmmmm...] see also meeting materials that we have received will be at , search for "ippm". --Matt _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:19:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0272E28C569; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q32ijoYY7Z5D; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA91C3A6E0E; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F332428C8C4 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6PPq8zZ2GvN for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649473A6C3C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DC047EC8 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18351-04 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AD847FC6 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47D554A8.4010900@internet2.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:32:56 -0400 From: Matthew J Zekauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Subject: [ippm] reminder: send us your slides, please! X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org We put up the slides before the meeting, so please do send them in ASAP. We're still missing a bunch... Thanks! --Matt _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:39:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7C53A6E8B; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VXXEpTMEq9EQ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AB028C0DF; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:22:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4DB3A6EF9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:22:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8wtds1YqriF2 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAF528C4AC for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1205164943!161171!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 6337 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2008 16:02:23 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Mar 2008 16:02:23 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2AG2Npa023312 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:02:23 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2AG2H6d023238 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:02:17 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m2AG2HZ5016990 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:17 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m2AG29Y0016739 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200803101602.m2AG29Y0016739@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.99.36](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080310160208gw100l7olne>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:02:09 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:02:08 -0400 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org At 09:43 AM 2/25/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to >to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. >Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. Two Editorial comments have come to my attention: In section 4.2.1, there's no explicit specification of the Timestamp format for the new packets defined. One could guess "same as OWAMP" and you'd be right with most, but... better to add (after the new formats, page 15) : Note that all Timestamps have the same format as OWAMP [RFC4656] as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Integer part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Fractional part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --- The second comment was a suggestion to reverse the order of two sentences for readability. I can't seem to find my note saying exactly which two sentences, but I think they were in section 5. I'll keep looking, Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:48:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DB428C523; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZx5KjZGndg1; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5FE28C5B0; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893693A6EF1 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyIWtJWFR5n8 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eecis.udel.edu (louie.udel.edu [128.4.40.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC4828C7DE for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.eecis.udel.edu (Postfix, from userid 62) id 94A4B964; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.4.62.80] (unknown [128.4.62.80]) (Authenticated sender: swany@mail.eecis.udel.edu) by mail.eecis.udel.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3C5956 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: From: Martin Swany To: ippm@ietf.org Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:50:48 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Sanitizer: This message has been sanitized! X-Sanitizer-URL: http://mailtools.anomy.net/ X-Sanitizer-Rev: UDEL-ECECIS: Sanitizer.pm, v 1.64 2002/10/22 MIME-Version: 1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:53 -0700 Subject: [ippm] New version of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I'm sorry for the short lead time on this, but there is a new version of the "Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users" draft. It will soon be officially submitted. In the meantime, it is here: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~swany/ippm/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt martin _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:05:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570FB28C1F4; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40dDCBExxSDN; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262063A68AA; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91263A684A for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIN6JpVn9gEB for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134013A68AA for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2008 11:02:59 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2AI2xqd008425; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:59 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2AI2rnD018404; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:02:58 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:47 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200803101602.m2AG29Y0016739@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciCzuLy9svlFy+xQNiB5y/lweivjAACYYug References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <200803101602.m2AG29Y0016739@klph001.kcdc.att.com> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Al Morton" , "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 18:02:54.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6E0BED0:01C882D8] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2223; t=1205172179; x=1206036179; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=AeGmvVV7C3aPJkhLiQDQUeQzp4Mn+qVgRfGx7kzUsfM=; b=q4fIHleErPEpk2Bs4nBLKueXT2BV9F38oAbbF3OQN5JiiYh3OR9tnyQuIy /WKl1qM9PWEJtVRli1pYOZlhPoajoKt3BOzXOhcHzzMs+8ios3bvh+3Gs0PR A7GuFp/dO8; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org While on the subject, the section 4.2.1 perhaps needs some reconsideration. It seems that only the first 16 bytes are covered in the authenticated mode, this leaves the Sender Sequence number open to manipulation. For the encrypted mode, one paragraph mentions first 96 Octets are encrypted, however, another paragraph mentions that the HMAC only covers the portion encrypted which is 32 bytes. -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:02 AM To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt At 09:43 AM 2/25/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to >to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. >Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. Two Editorial comments have come to my attention: In section 4.2.1, there's no explicit specification of the Timestamp format for the new packets defined. One could guess "same as OWAMP" and you'd be right with most, but... better to add (after the new formats, page 15) : Note that all Timestamps have the same format as OWAMP [RFC4656] as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Integer part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Fractional part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --- The second comment was a suggestion to reverse the order of two sentences for readability. I can't seem to find my note saying exactly which two sentences, but I think they were in section 5. I'll keep looking, Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From citinet@att.com Tue Mar 11 15:07:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D523A6D47 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.183 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_99=3.5, BODY_ENHANCEMENT2=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_TR=0.935, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ADLTSUB2=1.23, SARE_ADULT2=1.42, SARE_SUB_PENIS=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zUFLZD9uoy4V for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dsl78.186-64528.ttnet.net.tr (unknown [78.186.252.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EADE3A6BD0 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:17:19 +0000 From: "davis yale" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.99.27) UNREG X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <07378878.20080311220442@lists.ietf.org> To: "Rosalinda Rosa" Subject: Penis Enlargement Scams... Get The Truth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gain An Amazing 1 to 3 full Inches! VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients. http://porifirau.com/ From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 11 15:59:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A6428C2C9; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u43Vs65-wB2x; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F1D3A68AD; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90223A687B for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:48:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hmZ4lTjfS0W for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256903A6828 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a46so1871321rne.9 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.138.8 with SMTP id l8mr3991301ybd.72.1205275473077; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.24.1 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:44:32 -0800 From: "Stanislav Shalunov" To: ippm@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <47D70582.6070501@alcatel-lucent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <47D6E560.7050102@alcatel-lucent.com> <47D70582.6070501@alcatel-lucent.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:50 -0700 Subject: Re: [ippm] New version of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Further optimization -- only do alpha and alpha+epsilon. The epsilon value should not matter very much for continuous underlying PDF (I expect this is a prereq for the result anyway), so using something like epsilon = C/sample_size where C is a small integer value like 5 should work, right? This would require to know sample_size in advance, which contradicts the "in one pass" requirement. Hmm. OK, can bound sample_size at the top -- never make epsilon less than 1%, for example. Samples that are smaller than 100/C can just be kept in memory and considered part of the fixed memory cost. Yeah. This would double the computation cost for a large sample. Is it worth the ability to flag statistically suspect values? For some applications, definitely. I would still make this a MAY -- it's not an absolute necessity and it allows you to make your implementation of the whole error estimate a differentiating feature. -- Stas P.S. Please CC any responses from the IPPM list to me. Thanks. On 3/11/08, David Scheibelhut wrote: > Stas, > > I will resend to ippm@ietf.org with your response. > > Your comment on computational complexity is correct. One just needs an > algorithm for calculating epsilon. > > As far as the 99.999 percentile goes, at least it has lower standard > error than the 100th percentile. (It would be interesting to produce a > histogram of 100 percentile values and see if it matches an extreme > value distribution). > > Dave > > > Stanislav Shalunov wrote: > > David, > > > > Great points. Thank you for writing, and doing the work and digging > > up the references. We don't and should not rely on stddev of delay > > being finite, but the percentile-based estimate is the right thing. > > > > This message should be resent to ippm@ietf.org also. Would it be OK > > with you? (Along with, perhaps, this response.) If it's OK, I hope > > Martin, who is on the list, might resend? > > > > Estimating the PDF is only roughly twice as computationally expensive > > as computing the percentile, no? Just compute percentiles alpha +/- > > espison and divide? > > > > Doing some sort of sanity check is useful. People often will insist > > on producing statistics that can't be derived (see my own reports at > > http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/ -- that 99.999 percentile is > > garbage, but I spent enough time explaining this to the management who > > really wanted a bigger number at the end of the table that I just put > > it in). But yeah, it'd be useful to flag results that are suspect. > > This way, the number of reported metrics does not increase in the > > general case. It could flag the value as suspect if the expected > > relative error is more than 10%, for example. > > > > I agree about the needless difficulty of understanding C code. I > > still think that advantages of C outweigh this disadvantage: C is > > known to every reader who knows a programming language; fast; likely > > to be the actual implementation language; not likely to become the > > focus of discussion. Put R code in, and readers will become > > distracted by "weird language" or think that the reporting draft is > > only for those who know/use/understand R or statistics. Yet its whole > > point is to make good statistics easily reportable by every programmer > > who is working on an applicable problem. Have a game that reports > > "ping" to the user? We can tell you how to compute that so that it > > doesn't jump all over, so that "ping" from one game is the same as > > "ping" in another, and it's easy -- just grab this code. Replace C by > > R, and the game programmer will be put off. > > > > -- Stas > > > > On 3/11/08, David Scheibelhut wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> I found the previous draft quite helpful in the development of > >> requirements and tests for my own work. The focus on robust and > >> meaningful metrics cuts through a lot of clutter. The only area which > >> caused confusion is the topic of errors. > >> > >> Most people, when presented with a statistic such as the mean, median, > >> or 90th percentile, are inclined to presume that these metrics are > >> exact. But all of these metrics are based on statistical sampling and > >> thus are thus subject to sampling error. The owamp program indeed > >> reports an error metric, but it is the error associated with the clocks > >> in the two hosts and has nothing to do with sampling error. This clock > >> error is reported by the owamp program as being the error associated > >> with its other metrics. But its not called clock error, just error. > >> Its left as an exercise for the user to determine exactly what sort of > >> error is being reported. After concluding that it could not possibly be > >> sampling error, I read the code. > >> > >> I think, at minimum, all error should be labeled according to its type. > >> Tools should, by default, include enough samples to create reasonably > >> bounded error. Tools should flag as suspect metrics with high error. > >> > >> Any introductory statistics course will teach that the standard error of > >> the mean, SEM, is the standard deviation of the sample divided by the > >> square root of the sample size: > >> > >> SEM = s / sqrt(n) > >> > >> But having expressed a preference for the median, we are obligated to > >> report its standard error. It can be shown [W. Edwards Deming, Some > >> Theory of Sampling, p434] that > >> > >> Given percentile p such that 0 < p < 1 > >> Given n samples > >> Given xp, the estimated value of the sample for percentile p > >> Given yp, the estimated value of the density function for the sample at > >> percentile p (the estimated PDF(xp)) > >> then the standard error of the estimate for xp is > >> > >> SEP = sqrt (p * (1 - p) / n) / yp > >> > >> This formula requires us to estimate the value of the sample's histogram > >> (its density) at the desired percentile. Unfortunately, such a > >> calculation is much more complicated than just deriving the percentile's > >> value. Yet estimating the standard error is the only way to be > >> confident with its value. Furthermore, use of this formula illustrates > >> the huge number of samples necessary for a good estimate of higher > >> percentiles. On request, the owamp tool will happily report the 99% > >> value based on just a few samples, irregardless of whether the reported > >> value has much precision. > >> > >> ====== > >> > >> I know that C is has a long history of appearing in RFCs. But perhaps a > >> statistical language would make more sense for producing sample metric > >> code. The code in appendix A has more data manipulation than > >> statistics. From open source consider R (syntax close to C), Octave > >> (syntax close to MATLIB), J (APL!) or Lisp-Stat (!!!). R would be a > >> good choice. > >> > >> David Scheibelhut > >> > >> Alcatel-Lucent > >> Wireless Performance > >> > > > > > -- Stanislav Shalunov http://shlang.com/ _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 12 10:15:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3223A6EEC; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.685, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGD0L+-DY9gW; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592C03A69CA; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43BC3A687E for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSQFo0Ht39JX for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EAF3A6C15 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,489,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="8660891" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2008 10:13:05 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2CHD5NM009188; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:13:05 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2CHD3gM008848; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:13:03 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:13:01 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:12:54 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciCzuLy9svlFy+xQNiB5y/lweivjAACYYugAGL2q+A= References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net><200803101602.m2AG29Y0016739@klph001.kcdc.att.com> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" , "Al Morton" , "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2008 17:13:01.0448 (UTC) FILETIME=[539D6880:01C88464] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2688; t=1205341985; x=1206205985; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=8qNyAcyWB4YK/NqVw7PwUChlPmlU+FMrh1bx8MtcLp8=; b=TjWRpHhAbPYvNwKpgg1+FJm/yPbvaFzvoccIKuZZbqMR/znz1Jpc802a4P 3Wj6ouoy/5o7D0ImS1dLCLnkw7co+/Wf0wYtpa3pvhuvGJ2NPaMBDZuL/0xK 5/VN2jQFuVOboXuClwyVhXH7DfAhSz8afQ4PmKdxRwaI6i+1dp/RQ=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Any clarifications? -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:03 AM To: Al Morton; Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt While on the subject, the section 4.2.1 perhaps needs some reconsideration. It seems that only the first 16 bytes are covered in the authenticated mode, this leaves the Sender Sequence number open to manipulation. For the encrypted mode, one paragraph mentions first 96 Octets are encrypted, however, another paragraph mentions that the HMAC only covers the portion encrypted which is 32 bytes. -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:02 AM To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt At 09:43 AM 2/25/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to >to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. >Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. Two Editorial comments have come to my attention: In section 4.2.1, there's no explicit specification of the Timestamp format for the new packets defined. One could guess "same as OWAMP" and you'd be right with most, but... better to add (after the new formats, page 15) : Note that all Timestamps have the same format as OWAMP [RFC4656] as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Integer part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Fractional part of seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --- The second comment was a suggestion to reverse the order of two sentences for readability. I can't seem to find my note saying exactly which two sentences, but I think they were in section 5. I'll keep looking, Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 12 10:48:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1730428C462; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:48:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNX5G9XeToTt; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585FF3A6996; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CC328C6E9 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BUXROUNOeJXC for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D82028C805 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwsgpa.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-121-22.lucent.com [135.1.121.22]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m2CHjFnR018645 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:45:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [135.244.5.130] by nwsgpa.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id m2CHjFR00052; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:45:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47D816AA.3090008@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:45:14 -0500 From: David Scheibelhut User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPPM X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Subject: Re: [ippm] New version of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org All, I found the previous draft quite helpful in the development of = requirements and tests for my own work. The focus on robust and = meaningful metrics cuts through a lot of clutter. The only area which = caused confusion is the topic of errors. Most people, when presented with a statistic such as the mean, median, = or 90th percentile, are inclined to presume that these metrics are = exact. But all of these metrics are based on statistical sampling and = thus are thus subject to sampling error. The owamp program indeed = reports an error metric, but it is the error associated with the clocks = in the two hosts and has nothing to do with sampling error. This clock = error is reported by the owamp program as being the error associated = with its other metrics. But its not called clock error, just error. Its = left as an exercise for the user to determine exactly what sort of error = is being reported. After concluding that it could not possibly be = sampling error, I read the code. I think, at minimum, all error should be labeled according to its type. = Tools should, by default, include enough samples to create reasonably = bounded error. Tools should flag as suspect metrics with high error. Any introductory statistics course will teach that the standard error of = the mean, SEM, is the standard deviation of the sample divided by the = square root of the sample size: SEM =3D s / sqrt(n) But having expressed a preference for the median, we are obligated to = report its standard error. It can be shown [W. Edwards Deming, Some = Theory of Sampling, p434] that Given percentile p such that 0 < p < 1 Given n samples Given xp, the estimated value of the sample for percentile p Given yp, the estimated value of the density function for the sample at = percentile p (the estimated PDF(xp)) then the standard error of the estimate for xp is SEP =3D sqrt (p * (1 - p) / n) / yp This formula requires us to estimate the value of the sample's histogram = (its density) at the desired percentile. Unfortunately, such a = calculation is much more complicated than just deriving the percentile's = value. Yet estimating the standard error is the only way to be = confident with its value. Furthermore, use of this formula illustrates = the huge number of samples necessary for a good estimate of higher = percentiles. On request, the owamp tool will happily report the 99% = value based on just a few samples, irregardless of whether the reported = value has much precision. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I know that C is has a long history of appearing in RFCs. But perhaps a = statistical language would make more sense for producing sample metric = code. The code in appendix A has more data manipulation than = statistics. From open source consider R (syntax close to C), Octave = (syntax close to MATLIB), J (APL!) or Lisp-Stat (!!!). R would be a = good choice. David Scheibelhut Alcatel-Lucent Wireless Performance =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Response from shalunov@shlang.com > Stanislav Shalunov wrote: > David, > = > Great points. Thank you for writing, and doing the work and digging > up the references. We don't and should not rely on stddev of delay > being finite, but the percentile-based estimate is the right thing. > = > This message should be resent to ippm@ietf.org also. Would it be OK > with you? (Along with, perhaps, this response.) If it's OK, I hope > Martin, who is on the list, might resend? > = > Estimating the PDF is only roughly twice as computationally expensive > as computing the percentile, no? Just compute percentiles alpha =B1 > espison and divide? > = > Doing some sort of sanity check is useful. People often will insist > on producing statistics that can't be derived (see my own reports at > http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/ -- that 99.999 percentile is > garbage, but I spent enough time explaining this to the management who > really wanted a bigger number at the end of the table that I just put > it in). But yeah, it'd be useful to flag results that are suspect. > This way, the number of reported metrics does not increase in the > general case. It could flag the value as suspect if the expected > relative error is more than 10%, for example. > = > I agree about the needless difficulty of understanding C code. I > still think that advantages of C outweigh this disadvantage: C is > known to every reader who knows a programming language; fast; likely > to be the actual implementation language; not likely to become the > focus of discussion. Put R code in, and readers will become > distracted by "weird language" or think that the reporting draft is > only for those who know/use/understand R or statistics. Yet its whole > point is to make good statistics easily reportable by every programmer > who is working on an applicable problem. Have a game that reports > "ping" to the user? We can tell you how to compute that so that it > doesn't jump all over, so that "ping" from one game is the same as > "ping" in another, and it's easy -- just grab this code. Replace C by > R, and the game programmer will be put off. > = > -- Stas _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 06:49:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F993A6E4B; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDoyRkMqKC+Y; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F0228C86B; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E7028C37E for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65eEaJ3wNY3O for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.wpi.edu (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E88828C6C0 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcafee.wpi.edu (MCAFEE.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.86]) by mail1.wpi.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m2CFKAAS019614 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:20:10 -0400 Received: from (130.215.36.186) by mcafee.wpi.edu via smtp id 01a8_cde79b7a_f047_11dc_948a_0013725b2d50; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:20:09 -0400 Received: from newsaagar.wpi.edu (NEWSAAGAR.WPI.EDU [130.215.29.21]) by SMTP.WPI.EDU (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2CFK9dr003463 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:20:10 -0400 (envelope-from claypool@newsaagar.wpi.edu) Received: by newsaagar.wpi.edu (Postfix, from userid 1777) id 3E1EB696A; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:19:53 -0400 (GMT+4) From: Mark Claypool MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <18391.59017.59863.667089@newsaagar.wpi.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:19:53 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 15) "Security Through Obscurity" XEmacs Lucid X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:30 -0700 Subject: [ippm] NetGames 2008 CFP X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org ++++++++++++++++++++ NetGames 2008 Call for Papers ++++++++++++++++++++ Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games: NetGames 2008 October 21st and 22nd, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA http://netgames2008.cs.wpi.edu/ OVERVIEW ======== The 7th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames 2008) will be held in Worcester, Massachusetts, USA on October 21-22, 2008. The sponsor is Worcester Polytechnic Institute with cooperation from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM SIGMM and ACM SIGCOMM). The NetGames workshop brings together researchers and developers from academia and industry to present new research in understanding networked games of today and in enabling the next generation of networked games of tomorrow. Submissions are sought in any area related to networked games. In particular, topics of interest include (but are not limited to) game-related work in: * Network measurement, usage studies and traffic modeling * System benchmarking, performance evaluation, and provisioning * Latency issues and lag compensation techniques * Cheat detection and prevention * Operating system enhancements, service platforms, and middleware * Peer-to-peer and scalable system architectures * Network protocol design * Mobile and resource-constrained systems * Augmented physical systems * User and usability studies, Group dynamics * Quality of service and content adaptation * Artificial intelligence * Security, authentication, accounting and digital rights management * Networks of sensors and actuators * Impact of online game growth on network infrastructure * Messaging and conferencing in games * Input devices, haptics and accessibility * Results that reproduce (or refute) previous published results Please feel free to contact the conference chair, Mark Claypool (claypool@cs.wpi.edu), with questions as to whether the scope of a particular paper is suitable for NetGames. SUBMISSIONS =========== Submissions should be full papers with a limit of 6 pages (inclusive of all figures, references and appendices). Authors must submit their papers in PDF and use single-spaced, double column ACM conference format. Reviews will be single-blind, so authors must include their names and affiliations on the first page. Papers will be judged on their relevance, technical content and correctness, and the clarity of presentation of the research. Papers should not be under review at another venue nor previously published elsewhere. Submission of a paper for review will be considered an agreement that at least one author will register and attend if the paper is accepted. ORGANIZATION ============ WORKSHOP CHAIR: Mark Claypool (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Grenville Armitage (Swinburne University of Technology) Surendar Chandra (Notre Dame) Kajal Claypool (MIT Lincoln Labs) Wu-chang Feng (Portland State University) Wu-chi Feng (Portland State University) David Finkel (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) Carsten Griwodz (University of Oslo) Paal Halvorsen (University of Oslo) Brian Levine (University of Massachusetts) John Miller (Microsoft Research) Travis Schluessler (Intel Corporation) Anees Shaikh (IBM Research) Ooi Wei Tsang (National University of Singapore) Lars Wolf (Technical University Braunschweig) KEY DATES ========= Paper registration: May 4, 2008 (23:59 GMT) Paper submission: May 11, 2008 (23:59 GMT) Author notification: July 6, 2008 Camera ready: August 17, 2008 Workshop: October 21-22, 2008 ++++++++++++++++++++ NetGames 2008 Call for Papers ++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 06:49:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E8A3A6E4D; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FRT_COCK=1.544, FRT_STOCK2=3.988, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gnqMVthDQf39; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B299228C8AF; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6154D28C196 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:34:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LabOB6i5sjn for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.wpi.edu (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD89228C132 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcafee.wpi.edu (MCAFEE.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.86]) by mail1.wpi.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m2DCWS4v004416 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:32:28 -0400 Received: from (130.215.36.186) by mcafee.wpi.edu via smtp id 541e_8aedb86a_f0f9_11dc_8b59_0013725b2d50; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:32:28 -0400 Received: from newsaagar.wpi.edu (NEWSAAGAR.WPI.EDU [130.215.29.21]) by SMTP.WPI.EDU (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2DCWRLI012250 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:32:28 -0400 (envelope-from claypool@newsaagar.wpi.edu) Received: by newsaagar.wpi.edu (Postfix, from userid 1777) id 3A2E6696A; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:32:11 -0400 (GMT+4) From: Mark Claypool MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <18393.4283.61612.230969@newsaagar.wpi.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:32:11 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 15) "Security Through Obscurity" XEmacs Lucid X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:49:30 -0700 Subject: [ippm] PAM 2008 Call for Participation X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Early registrion ends March 15th! ****************** CALL FOR PARTICIPATION ***************** Passive & Active Measurement Conference (PAM 2008) Cleveland, Ohio, USA April 29th-30th, 2008 http://pam2008.cs.wpi.edu/ ********************************************************** Conference Information ---------------------- The ninth Passive and Active Measurement conference will be held April 29-30th, 2008 in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. This event focuses on research and practical applications of network measurement and analysis techniques. The conference's goal is to provide a forum for current work in its early stages. Program ------- Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 ADDRESSING AND TOPOLOGY "The Flattening Internet Topology: Natural Evolution, Unsightly Barnacles or Contrived Collapse?" Authors: Phillipa Gill (University of Calgary) Martin Arlitt (HP Labs/University of Calgary) Zongpeng Li (University of Calgary) Anirban Mahanti (Indian Institute of Technology - Delhi) "Assessing the Geographic Resolution of Exhaustive Tabulation" Authors: S.S. Siwpersad (Delft University of Technology) Bamba Gueye (Universite de Liege) Steve Uhlig (Delft University of Technology) "Observations of IPv6 Addresses" Author: David Malone (Hamilton Institute, NUIM Maynooth, Ireland) APPLICATIONS "The New Web: Characterizing AJAX Traffic" Authors: Fabian Schneider (TU Berlin / DT Labs) Sachin Agarwal (DT Labs) Tansu Alpcan (DT Labs) Anja Feldmann (TU Berlin / DT Labs) "Measurement and Estimation of Network QoS among Peer Xbox 360 Game Players" Authors: Youngki Lee (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Tech.) Sharad Agarwal (Microsoft Research) Chris Butcher (Bungie Studios) Jitu Padhye (Microsoft Research) "Evaluation of VoIP Quality over WiBro" Authors: Mongnam Han (KAIST) Sue Moon (KAIST) Youngseok Lee (Chungnam National University) Keon Jang (KAIST) Dooyoung Lee (KAIST) CLASSIFICATION AND SAMPLING "Packet Sampling for Flow Accounting: Challenges and Limitations" Authors: Tanja Zseby (Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS) Thomas Hirsch (Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS) Benoit Claise (Cisco Systems) "On the Validation of Traffic Classification Algorithms" Authors: Geza Szabo (Ericsson) Daniel Orincsay (Ericsson) Szabolcs Malomsoky (Ericsson) Istan Szabo (Ericsson) "Evaluation of Header Field Entropy for Hash-Based Packet Selection" Authors: Christian Henke (Fraunhofer Institute Fokus) Carsten Schmoll (Fraunhofer Institute Fokus) Tanja Zseby (Fraunhofer Institute Fokus) MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS AND FRAMEWORKS "A Reactive Measurement Framework" Authors: Mark Allman (ICSI) Vern Paxson (ICSI) "Towards a High Quality Path-oriented Network Measurement and Storage System" Authors: David Johnson (University of Utah) Daniel Gebhardt (University of Utah) Jay Lepreau (University of Utah) "On Community-Oriented Internet Measurement" Authors: Mark Allman (ICSI) Lann Martin (Case Western Reserve University) Michael Rabinovich (Case Western Reserve University) Kenneth Atchinson (Baldwin-Wallace College) Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 WIRELESS 802.11 "On the Effectiveness of Switched Beam Antennas in Indoor Environments" Authors: Marc Blanco (Rice University) Ravi Kokku (NEC Laboratories America, Princeton) Kishore Ramachandran (Rutgers University) Sampath Rangarajan (NEC Laboratories America, Princeton) Karthik Sundaresan (NEC Laboratories America, Princeton) "On the Fidelity of 802.11 Packet Traces" Authors: Aaron Schulman (University of Maryland, College Park) Dave Levin (University of Maryland, College Park) Neil Spring (University of Maryland, College Park) "Refocusing in 802.11 Wireless Measurement" Authors: Udayan Deshpande (Dartmouth College) Chris McDonald (The University of Western Australia) David Kotz (Dartmouth College) TOOLS "Pathdiag: Automatic TCP Diagnosis" Authors: Matt Mathis (Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center) John Heffner (Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center) Peter O'Neil (Mid-Atlantic Crossroads) Pete Siemsen (National Center for Atmospheric Research) "SCUBA: Focus and Context for Real-time Mesh Network Health Diagnosis" Authors: Amit P. Jardosh (UC Santa Barbara) Panuakdet Suwannatat (UC Santa Barbara) Tobias Hollerer (UC Santa Barbara) Elizabeth M. Belding (UC Santa Barbara) Kevin C. Almeroth (UC Santa Barbara) "IMR-Pathload: Robust Available Bandwidth Estimation under End-Host Interrupt Delay" Authors: Seong-Ryong Kang (Texas A&M University) Dmitri Loguinov (Texas A&M University) CHARACTERIZATION AND TRENDS "A Measurement Study of Internet Delay Asymmetry" Authors: Abhinav Pathak (Purdue University) Himabindu Pucha (Purdue University) Ying Zhang (University of Michigan) Y. Charlie Hu (Purdue University) Z. Morley Mao (University of Michigan) "Trends and Differences in Connection Behavior within Classes of Internet Backbone Traffic" Authors: Wolfgang John (Chalmers University of Technology) Sven Tafvelin (Chalmers University of Technology) Tomas Olovsson (Chalmers University of Technology) "The Cubicle vs. The Coffee Shop: Behavioral Modes in Enterprise End-Users" Authors: Frederic Giroire (INRIA) Jaideep Chandrashekar (Intel Research) Gianluca Iannaccone (Intel Research) Dina Papagiannaki (Intel Research) Eve Schooler (Intel Research) Nina Taft (Intel Research) MALWARE AND ANOMALIES "A Two-Layered Anomaly Detection Technique based on Multi-modal Flow Behavior Models" Authors: Marc Ph. Stoecklin (IBM Research) Jean-Yves Le Boudec (EPFL) Andreas Kind (IBM Research) "Malware in IEEE 802.11 Wireless Networks" Authors: Brett Stone-Gross (UC Santa Barbara) Christo Wilson (UC Santa Barbara) Kevin Almeroth (UC Santa Barbara) Elizabeth Belding (UC Santa Barbara) Heather Zheng (UC Santa Barbara) Konstantina Papagiannaki (Intel Research) Conference Web Pages -------------------- Home: http://pam2008.cs.wpi.edu/ Program: http://pam2008.cs.wpi.edu/committee.html Travel: http://pam2008.cs.wpi.edu/areainfo.html Registration: http://pam2008.cs.wpi.edu/registration.html Organization Committee --------------------------- Michael Rabinovich Case Western Reserve University General Chair Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute Program Chair Steve Uhlig Delft University of Technology Publication Chair Technical Program Committee --------------------------- Mark Allman ICSI Grenville Armitage Swinburne University of Technology Surendar Chandra Notre Dame Jae Chung Airvana Wu-Chang Feng Portland State University Wu-Chi Feng Portland State University Paal Halvorsen University of Oslo Manish Jain Telchemy Kevin Jeffay University of North Carolina Simon Leinen Switch Kang Li University of Georgia Ibrahim Matta Boston University Ketan Mayer-Patel University of North Carolina Anees Shaikh IBM Research Coleen Shannon CAIDA Augustin Soule Thomson Research Peter Steenkiste Carnegie Mellon University Ooi Wei Tsang National University of Singapore Steve Uhlig Delft University of Technology Carey Williamson University of Calgary Craig Wills Worcester Polytechnic Institute Huahui Wu Google Michael Zink University of Massachusetts Steering Committee ------------------- Mark Allman ICSI Nevil Brownlee University of Auckland Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute Ian Graham Endace Konstantina Papagiannaki Intel Research Pittsburgh Michael Rabinovich Case Western Reserve University Matthew Roughan University of Adelaide Steve Uhlig Delft University of Technology _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From facfoxylovecej@foxylove.net Sun Mar 16 04:17:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D210928C20F; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:17:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.536 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_DATE=1.245, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cOXlogyrrozO; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.128.252.106] (unknown [195.138.193.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE18F28C321; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.128.252.106] by mail.foxylove.net; , 16 Mar 2008 13:14:49 +0200 Date: , 16 Mar 2008 13:14:49 +0200 From: "Fernando Mills" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.6) Personal Reply-To: facfoxylovecej@foxylove.net X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <710921366.41301819111540@foxylove.net> To: agentx-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------D31FB25018FB2CD" ------------D31FB25018FB2CD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looking for the better pricein software discounts? Now you'll catch the opportunity to use the software equipment you want from long time. And the best thing for you is, all softs are awfully cheap. Check up by yourself and take the softwares for lowest rates ever seen! http://maryannlingardpp592.blogspot.com ------------D31FB25018FB2CD Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Looking for the better pricein software discounts?
Now you'll catch the opportunity to use the software equipment you want from long time.
And the best thing for you is, all softs are awfully cheap.
Check up by yourself and take the softwares for lowest rates ever seen!
http://maryannlingardpp592.blogspot.com ------------D31FB25018FB2CD-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 17 08:14:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C7628C3E4; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.218 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.781, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Fii6JUO-88c; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E608928C1B8; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C790C3A6CE1 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cib2+EaqfrPc for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.19.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE793A6C64 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by postman.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 4008) id EA6E823EF3; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from herring.ripe.net (herring.ripe.net [193.0.1.203]) by postman.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821AC23EEE for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from guest-wv-34.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793242F583; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:41 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henk Uijterwaal References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: X-RIPE-Spam-Tests: ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-RIPE-Spam-Status: N 0.000000 / -4.4 X-RIPE-Signature: 21bd0073e89a610c3a64492d85c8a0ba Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM Group, > This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to > to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. > Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. > > An URL for the draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on the list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document forward. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From zifgioielliduemilacop@gioielliduemila.com Tue Mar 18 06:08:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDF328C552 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.995 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IwraM871hBSw for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hat.sa.ba.crooce.com (hat.sa.ba.crooce.com [217.67.23.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D779C3A6EC7 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [217.67.23.2] by gioielliduemila.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:06:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:06:35 +0100 From: "Terry Powell" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.0) Educational Reply-To: zifgioielliduemilacop@gioielliduemila.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <819349600.18438553123181@gioielliduemila.com> To: ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------016758BDAE92CBD" ------------016758BDAE92CBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Searching for the best price in discount software? Now you'll find the chance to use the softs you dreamt of for a very long time. And the best matter for you is, all softs are of awfully low prices. Confirm by youself and take the softwares for lowest prices! http://pammooktg969.blogspot.com ------------016758BDAE92CBD Content-Type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Searching for the best price in discount software?
Now you'll find the chance to use the softs you dreamt of for a very long time.
And the best matter for you is, all softs are of awfully low prices.
Confirm by youself and take the softwares for lowest prices!
http://pammooktg969.blogspot.com ------------016758BDAE92CBD-- From zifgiumarelloscop@giumarellos.com Tue Mar 18 14:04:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E55A3A67F2; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:04:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.995 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IR5kNon6sywz; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coopcastilla.telesat.net.co (coopcastilla.telesat.net.co [66.128.40.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D689128C1DA; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.128.40.249] by mx4.mysuperpageshosting.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:02:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:02:22 -0500 From: "Bernadette Caudill" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.51.10) Professional Reply-To: zifgiumarelloscop@giumarellos.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <577587542.62293792663114@giumarellos.com> To: agentx-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------D38DABBB48DA4F21" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080318-1, 18/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean ------------D38DABBB48DA4F21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Are you searhing for the better prices in software discounts? Now you will get the chance to use the softs you dreamt of for a very long time. And the better thing for you is, all softs are of awfully low prices. Be sure by youself and take the softwares for cheapest rates ever seen! http://annmarierooneyn177.blogspot.com ------------D38DABBB48DA4F21 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Are you searhing for the better prices in software discounts?
Now you will get the chance to use the softs you dreamt of for a very long time.
And the better thing for you is, all softs are of awfully low prices.
Be sure by youself and take the softwares for cheapest rates ever seen!
http://annmarierooneyn177.blogspot.com ------------D38DABBB48DA4F21-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 25 13:12:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6EE3A6E40; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96KMefUJqYi1; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9060A3A6CA1; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68463A6964 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6djfvbNgdbS for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30043A681F for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2008 13:10:08 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2PKA8FD024213; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:10:08 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2PKA88H005539; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:10:08 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:10:08 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:09:59 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciIQT4OkC2DwQjETrKKWkB2W1SHIgGcVxDQ References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Henk Uijterwaal" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2008 20:10:08.0500 (UTC) FILETIME=[39339B40:01C88EB4] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2761; t=1206475808; x=1207339808; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=faqmAjhIp7MSFdUkcc9CNVVFL/wC1WdM8KL7NOJRIhQ=; b=Qh+PDXFkdpVoApbEILtn9pBNDiQte93giWJYPQR5rdNi8faSNMfddSCi4z RwmtZ40ltlraQCw0Lu6+KYlrneGSdkp1vQvvFygDBhObT5ovBxoYEcntc5sV kcjI9+wGEZPmL9qq0gFOMoXBMERfX5tJwTANirpj5F5E7u7X7voH4=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Some more questions on TWAMP draft. Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent by the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as the Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description record can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and Number of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude the no. Skip Ranges record. Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one may want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network behaviour. Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a SID in the Requests and Responses. -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM To: Henk Uijterwaal Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt IPPM Group, > This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to > to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. > Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. > > An URL for the draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on the list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document forward. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 26 00:30:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBB63A6EDE; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uif2rSPhFDOW; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CE23A6F23; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA33D3A6DDE for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjqhwbSqBiCF for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7FB3A6F21 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEF747C98; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23149-07; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.16.56.18] (unknown [69.20.181.68]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725D247BDC; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:28:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:28:12 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That > would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for > different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one > may > want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network > behaviour. I believe it is more simple to just open another control-connection in this case. That was the solution we decided upon in OWAMP anyway. I can see other use cases where it would be advantageous to do as you suggest. It probably comes down to determining what the most likely use cases are and optimizing based on that. But, I figured I would let you know the motivation for why we did it this way in OWAMP. (In fact, at the time I suggested something like what you have suggested here. In the end, during implementation, I was glad to have it stay more simple.) jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 26 08:57:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C342928C370; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsTHZb+qJWzu; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410793A6CA1; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B993A6CA1 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBKokQU-CEnr for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CBD3A6860 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2008 08:55:09 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2QFt9OH025571; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:55:09 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2QFt9VO028298; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:55:09 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:55:08 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:55:00 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciPEvVPsJBGdFN/TQi6qfrnerRaHQARbv+Q References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2008 15:55:08.0865 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4525310:01C88F59] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1843; t=1206546909; x=1207410909; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=06fWDtujbJV9Vzu1Tx0lfl6x6WpOI/8VvJ9XcYq5838=; b=Y+f0QIc2z4bXRGWK2649AaqQ/D0T3xJhrRkVsrTebbNi/XHSPmKfXLdJjJ 48OW3EgOGEpugNfVoLTsBPg/D+LzkvxKgU8ZUKidWJsg3FDlgWfa7uf0jHA4 nwjgFTiRCS; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jeff, If the protocol wants to optimize on starting all test-streams at once then a flag can be added to indicate ALL or can be indicated by a SID == 0. Start-Sessions can also include multiple SIDs to allow for starting particular sessions. IMHO its cumbersome to add multiple connections each time a test session needs to be started, instead it is better to re-use the open connection. It also would be nice if the responses include a Command-Code, that way the packet type is clearly identified and does not need to be guessed based on the state. Thanks, -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:28 AM To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That > would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for > different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one > may > want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network > behaviour. I believe it is more simple to just open another control-connection in this case. That was the solution we decided upon in OWAMP anyway. I can see other use cases where it would be advantageous to do as you suggest. It probably comes down to determining what the most likely use cases are and optimizing based on that. But, I figured I would let you know the motivation for why we did it this way in OWAMP. (In fact, at the time I suggested something like what you have suggested here. In the end, during implementation, I was glad to have it stay more simple.) jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From paans039@planet.nl Wed Mar 26 17:05:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550C73A6F75; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:05:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.059 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MILLION_USD=1.528, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5nACOk0B3DN7; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com [213.75.38.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6FE3A6F85; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpsmtp-eml24.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.38.124]) by hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:08 +0100 Received: from cpbrm-eml19.kpnsp.local ([195.121.247.250]) by hpsmtp-eml24.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:02:40 +0100 Received: from hpsmtp-eml30.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.53.250]) by cpbrm-eml19.kpnsp.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:02:38 +0100 Received: from localhost ([10.94.53.250]) by hpsmtp-eml30.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:02:37 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.C4A7622D" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: CONTACT MR. BRENT Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:01:55 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CONTACT MR. BRENT thread-index: AciPncKkKRsQN1qfRSeCgTJ75YxgqA== From: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2008 00:02:37.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDB08630:01C88F9D] To: undisclosed-recipients:; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.C4A7622D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 I have a business proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of = this sum is at stake for you, if you indulge in this transaction. For = more details, send me an email through my personal email address = [mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] and please include your full name and phone = number, so that i can contact you immediately. Cheers! Mr. Anderson M. Brent +44 7045708770 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.C4A7622D Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A=
 
=0A=
 
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=

I have a business = proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of this sum is at stake = for you, if you indulge in this transaction. For more details, send me = an email through my personal email address [mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] = and please include your full name and phone number, so that i can = contact you immediately. Cheers!
Mr. Anderson M. Brent
+44 = 7045708770
------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.C4A7622D-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:15:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2424128C216; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BaN73+FHYuUI; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44F43A6CB1; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937A63A691C for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s1nTuHpFz9oa for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C7A3A68FC for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,572,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="18989667" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2008 12:15:32 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2SJFVvE022263; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SJFVdk024275; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:15:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:15:19 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciIQT4OkC2DwQjETrKKWkB2W1SHIgGcVxDQAJU7wqA= References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" , "Henk Uijterwaal" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 19:15:30.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[16D01280:01C89108] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3528; t=1206731731; x=1207595731; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=0KN4+XODe/F1eR1/2cOZPJNTswwOvPMZPYwizqY0nds=; b=GOrwXx3MMjHRqwodejcuhgIj0eRc5CLLV8ULskjM3o0Ovn9yo4wGeHl0EA 60uwEj75rUoYcFukxIlD+P9QAxU/QZSkdRGQu3RWsRqcQ+7sx5Kg/QdveRGP XzqfD6mxhW; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Another clarification question. For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption and authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first encrypt and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM To: Henk Uijterwaal Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt Some more questions on TWAMP draft. Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent by the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as the Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description record can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and Number of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude the no. Skip Ranges record. Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one may want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network behaviour. Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a SID in the Requests and Responses. -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM To: Henk Uijterwaal Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt IPPM Group, > This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to > to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. > Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. > > An URL for the draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on the list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document forward. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:02:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF46828C46B; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jl2nMwqWePRh; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CC53A691C; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5B03A6B53 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUETABdHrsGN for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FD828C8F7 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB6E47D1A; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21027-03; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05C347CFC; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:01:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> Message-Id: <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:01:19 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > Another clarification question. > > For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption and > authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first encrypt > and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control > packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section > 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the same, but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different 'modes': open, encrypted, authenticated. These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which process the individual packets go through is defined based on the selected mode. They are independent - there is no order to consider. The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the timestamp information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to reduce the amount of time from when the timestamp was retrieved and the packet is actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data segment is encrypted including the timestamp. Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? jeff > -Murtaza > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM > To: Henk Uijterwaal > Cc: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > > Some more questions on TWAMP draft. > > Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent > by > the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as > the > Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. > > Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description record > can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and > Number of > Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session > description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude > the no. Skip Ranges record. > > Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That > would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for > different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one > may > want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network > behaviour. > > Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a > Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the > Accept > field should be the second field. It also entails adding a SID in the > Requests and Responses. > > -Murtaza > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM > To: Henk Uijterwaal > Cc: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > IPPM Group, > >> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to >> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it > forward. >> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. >> >> An URL for the draft is: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on the > list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to > include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document > forward. > > Matt & Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the next > elections _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:59:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE973A7011; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.053 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.616, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TEc1+mD-g0Mz; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC633A6E42; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE623A6D72 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJPjGKg+SwRi for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AB03A6E85 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2008 14:59:46 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2SLxkx4007587; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:46 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SLxelQ007614; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:59:46 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:43 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:59:33 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciRDoB0rOYoVcGfTPiTibQ1O5oFDQAEEjhA References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 21:59:43.0908 (UTC) FILETIME=[07B07E40:01C8911F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5064; t=1206741586; x=1207605586; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=RELv0ZjsvR9RGCxAi5cseqO/s71tocuSjCOrwt+rLIQ=; b=bkaZMdEQviJvsctctrvKj0Y+8Fev2ThulSMWK0UzHEp1edFrPWtBx3ibCZ d9fb1QYB2iom/sk47TocqjnEcp4UCiEckcRSN/eNXc1lreHoraP1gcsCrRod dnDND2PDrL; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org In encrypted mode is the HMAC field set to 0 for test packets? -Murtaza -----Original Message----- From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:01 PM To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > Another clarification question. > > For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption and > authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first encrypt > and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control > packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section > 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the same, but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different 'modes': open, encrypted, authenticated. These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which process the individual packets go through is defined based on the selected mode. They are independent - there is no order to consider. The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the timestamp information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to reduce the amount of time from when the timestamp was retrieved and the packet is actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data segment is encrypted including the timestamp. Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? jeff > -Murtaza > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM > To: Henk Uijterwaal > Cc: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > > Some more questions on TWAMP draft. > > Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent > by > the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as > the > Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. > > Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description record > can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and Number > of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session > description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude > the no. Skip Ranges record. > > Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That > would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for > different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one > may > want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network > behaviour. > > Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a > Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the > Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a SID > in the Requests and Responses. > > -Murtaza > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM > To: Henk Uijterwaal > Cc: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > IPPM Group, > >> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to >> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it > forward. >> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. >> >> An URL for the draft is: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on the > list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to > include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document > forward. > > Matt & Henk > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ------ > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the next > elections _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 22:39:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95B83A6E1E; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNSaoYuoWRet; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33863A67A7; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367033A691F for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2COMfkJj+tG for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15DB3A67A7 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A3E47CCD; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05698-09; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D5047C81; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:39:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:39:11 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > > In encrypted mode is the HMAC field set to 0 for test packets? I'm curious why you ask that? Is there something in the RFC that leads you think that? (Even if it is not reasonable to change this RFC, I would like to understand where we have been unclear.) I believe this should have been explained by the last paragraph of page 31/first paragraph of page 32 of the RFC: Implementation note: Naturally, the key schedule for each OWAMP-Test session MAY be set up only once per session, not once per packet. HMAC in OWAMP-Test only covers the part of the packet that is also encrypted. So, in authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first block (16 octets); in encrypted mode, HMAC covers two first blocks (32 octets). In OWAMP-Test HMAC is not encrypted (note that this is different from OWAMP-Control, where encryption in stream mode is used, so everything including the HMAC blocks ends up being encrypted). In all cases in the specification HMAC is computed before encrypting blocks (this is only stated earlier in the specification when talking about the control communication, but is standard for HMAC use). So, for the test packets: In authenticated mode, only the first block is used to generate the HMAC, and then only the first block is encrypted. In encrypted mode, the HMAC is computed using the first two blocks, and both of those blocks are encrypted. In both of these cases the HMAC field is set to the result of hashing the HMAC key with the data in the blocks using the HMAC-SHA1 algorithm as specified. jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:01 PM > To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: >> Another clarification question. >> >> For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption >> and >> authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first encrypt >> and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control >> packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section >> 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. > > I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the > same, > but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different > 'modes': > > open, encrypted, authenticated. > > These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which > process > the individual packets go through is defined based on the selected > mode. > They are independent - there is no order to consider. > > The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the > timestamp > information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to reduce the > amount of time from when the timestamp was retrieved and the packet is > actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data segment is encrypted > including the timestamp. > > Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? > > jeff > > > >> -Murtaza >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM >> To: Henk Uijterwaal >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> >> >> Some more questions on TWAMP draft. >> >> Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent >> by >> the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as >> the >> Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. >> >> Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description >> record > >> can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and Number >> of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session >> description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude >> the no. Skip Ranges record. >> >> Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That >> would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for >> different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one >> may >> want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network >> behaviour. >> >> Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a >> Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the >> Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a >> SID > >> in the Requests and Responses. >> >> -Murtaza >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Henk Uijterwaal >> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM >> To: Henk Uijterwaal >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> IPPM Group, >> >>> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>> >>> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears >>> to > >>> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it >> forward. >>> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. >>> >>> An URL for the draft is: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on >> the > >> list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to >> include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document >> forward. >> >> Matt & Henk >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> ------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: >> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> ------ >> >> Is one of the choices leaving the office open? >> Alan Greenspan on the next >> elections _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:21:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0345F3A6ABE; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.513, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EM2dPdmQkt73; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A509B3A6BBC; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847743A6ABE for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bU5AklsZMqw for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E5B3A6CC0 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2008 17:21:14 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2U0LD05012243; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2U0LDZt019536; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:21:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:21:03 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciRXzq1C9PTcSHUTYyZvTwKF7puYgAmvywQ References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2008 00:21:13.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[F665E1B0:01C891FB] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7904; t=1206836474; x=1207700474; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=kuHh8BCYCzYdwDFHqPCNkMhnZE1Y4HDaqeF/pLIx/N4=; b=YI9iCrLiXoYBAjoxLBWR7T2zUIICkAqMW3hnZ6SlEXEPODiTsNNbYGOVcl pWSbGCYcCBtJcuGbQBBWIRqtYbBcKo9dNOcaEunomBe1UfnIqVKl57cJf91Y HHgs8wQx3sKXLiqFutAWRao63xXj8ptllBjRknd2z5r7rayUYEFXI=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hello Jeff, Response at MSC> -----Original Message----- From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:39 PM To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > > In encrypted mode is the HMAC field set to 0 for test packets? I'm curious why you ask that? Is there something in the RFC that leads you think that? (Even if it is not reasonable to change this RFC, I would like to understand where we have been unclear.) I believe this should have been explained by the last paragraph of page 31/first paragraph of page 32 of the RFC: Implementation note: Naturally, the key schedule for each OWAMP-Test session MAY be set up only once per session, not once per packet. HMAC in OWAMP-Test only covers the part of the packet that is also encrypted. So, in authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first block (16 octets); in encrypted mode, HMAC covers two first blocks (32 octets). In OWAMP-Test HMAC is not encrypted (note that this is different from OWAMP-Control, where encryption in stream mode is used, so everything including the HMAC blocks ends up being encrypted). In all cases in the specification HMAC is computed before encrypting blocks (this is only stated earlier in the specification when talking about the control communication, but is standard for HMAC use). MSC> Since the Control exchange uses stream encryption it makes most sense that the HMAC is calculated before encrypting. However, for Test packets, since only part of the packet is being encrypted it is not clear whether the HMAC is a check for the encrypted packet (that is it is calculated after encryption) or for the packet before encryption. If it is a signature for the encrypted packet then one can check integrity before decrypting and that speeds-up processing, that is reverse of the process for Control packets. The other way round, the packet has to be decrypted first (a more expensive process) and then the signature needs to be verified. -Murtaza So, for the test packets: In authenticated mode, only the first block is used to generate the HMAC, and then only the first block is encrypted. In encrypted mode, the HMAC is computed using the first two blocks, and both of those blocks are encrypted. In both of these cases the HMAC field is set to the result of hashing the HMAC key with the data in the blocks using the HMAC-SHA1 algorithm as specified. jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:01 PM > To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: >> Another clarification question. >> >> For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption >> and >> authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first encrypt >> and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control >> packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section >> 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. > > I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the > same, but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different > 'modes': > > open, encrypted, authenticated. > > These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which > process the individual packets go through is defined based on the > selected mode. > They are independent - there is no order to consider. > > The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the > timestamp information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to > reduce the amount of time from when the timestamp was retrieved and > the packet is actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data > segment is encrypted including the timestamp. > > Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? > > jeff > > > >> -Murtaza >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM >> To: Henk Uijterwaal >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> >> >> Some more questions on TWAMP draft. >> >> Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent >> by >> the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as >> the >> Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. >> >> Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description >> record > >> can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and Number >> of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session >> description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to exclude >> the no. Skip Ranges record. >> >> Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That >> would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for >> different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one >> may >> want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network >> behaviour. >> >> Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a >> Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the >> Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a >> SID > >> in the Requests and Responses. >> >> -Murtaza >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Henk Uijterwaal >> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM >> To: Henk Uijterwaal >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> IPPM Group, >> >>> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>> >>> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears >>> to > >>> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it >> forward. >>> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. >>> >>> An URL for the draft is: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on >> the > >> list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to >> include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document >> forward. >> >> Matt & Henk >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -- >> ------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: >> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -- >> ------ >> >> Is one of the choices leaving the office open? >> Alan Greenspan on the next >> elections _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From epigrammatic.conclusp@pc.fujitsu.com Sat Mar 29 19:02:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076813A6AB2 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:02:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_BROADBND=1.118, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aK9G-X0Szzz for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 89.15.broadband7.iol.cz (89.15.broadband7.iol.cz [88.102.15.89]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC213A6843 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000901c8920a$0479a4ac$fbce6ea1@ocwpo> From: "kleon robley" To: "Santiago Salinas" Subject: Fine Jewelry and Timepieces Celebrity Jeweler Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:15:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 80% Off Luxury Rolexes Your Direct Swiss Secret source Hundreds of 2008 Watches In Stock http://rheumdakragas.com/ From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Sun Mar 30 14:33:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962993A6857; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AC13A6857 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.983, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vkDS39d2X1A2 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2143E3A6824 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7431F47FD5; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22806-08; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6DF47F3A; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:33:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:33:20 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Murtaza, On Mar 29, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > In all cases in the specification HMAC is computed before encrypting > blocks (this is only stated earlier in the specification when talking > about the control communication, but is standard for HMAC use). > > MSC> Since the Control exchange uses stream encryption it makes most > sense that the HMAC is calculated before encrypting. However, for > Test > packets, since only part of the packet is being encrypted it is not > clear whether the HMAC is a check for the encrypted packet (that is it > is calculated after encryption) or for the packet before encryption. > If it is a signature for the encrypted packet then one can check > integrity before decrypting and that speeds-up processing, that is > reverse of the process for Control packets. The other way round, the > packet has to be decrypted first (a more expensive process) and then > the > signature needs to be verified. The optimization you suggest is not without a cost. If the data going into the HMAC and the result of the HMAC are both transmitted in the clear, the HMAC hash function is more susceptible to attack. If this level of optimization is required, I suggest using open mode. If you believe others could be confused by the fact that it is not explicitly stated that the HMAC is computed on the non-encrypted message contents first (in this part of the RFC), then I would suggest submitting an errata for the RFC. jeff > > > -Murtaza > > So, for the test packets: In authenticated mode, only the first > block is > used to generate the HMAC, and then only the first block is encrypted. > In encrypted mode, the HMAC is computed using the first two blocks, > and > both of those blocks are encrypted. In both of these cases the HMAC > field is set to the result of hashing the HMAC key with the data in > the > blocks using the HMAC-SHA1 algorithm as specified. > > jeff > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] >> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:01 PM >> To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) >> Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: >>> Another clarification question. >>> >>> For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of encryption >>> and >>> authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first >>> encrypt >>> and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control >>> packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in the section >>> 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. >> >> I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the >> same, but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different >> 'modes': >> >> open, encrypted, authenticated. >> >> These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which >> process the individual packets go through is defined based on the >> selected mode. >> They are independent - there is no order to consider. >> >> The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the >> timestamp information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to >> reduce the amount of time from when the timestamp was retrieved and >> the packet is actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data >> segment is encrypted including the timestamp. >> >> Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? >> >> jeff >> >> >> >>> -Murtaza >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM >>> To: Henk Uijterwaal >>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >>> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> Some more questions on TWAMP draft. >>> >>> Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can only be sent >>> by >>> the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant Control-Client as >>> the >>> Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. >>> >>> Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description >>> record >> >>> can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and >>> Number > >>> of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session >>> description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to >>> exclude >>> the no. Skip Ranges record. >>> >>> Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions message? That >>> would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for >>> different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. Sometimes one >>> may >>> want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network >>> behaviour. >>> >>> Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a >>> Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the >>> Accept field should be the second field. It also entails adding a >>> SID >> >>> in the Requests and Responses. >>> >>> -Murtaza >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Henk Uijterwaal >>> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM >>> To: Henk Uijterwaal >>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG >>> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>> >>> IPPM Group, >>> >>>> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>>> >>>> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears >>>> to >> >>>> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it >>> forward. >>>> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. >>>> >>>> An URL for the draft is: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt >>> >>> This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were raised on >>> the >> >>> list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the list and to >>> include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document >>> forward. >>> >>> Matt & Henk >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> -- >>> ------ >>> Henk Uijterwaal Email: >>> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >>> RIPE Network Coordination Centre >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >>> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >>> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >>> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> -- >>> ------ >>> >>> Is one of the choices leaving the office open? >>> Alan Greenspan on the next >>> elections _______________________________________________ >>> ippm mailing list >>> ippm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ippm mailing list >>> ippm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ippm mailing list >>> ippm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> >> jeff >> -- >> Jeff W. Boote >> boote@internet2.edu >> >> >> > > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From WileymadelinePacheco@fedex.com Mon Mar 31 09:01:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9563A6C06; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -73.825 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-73.825 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_DOESNT_SAY_STOCK=10.357, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_MLH_Stock7=1.66, SARE_RMML_Stock25=0.8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ltN9H8JrkI+u; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from contabiliad2.rwplastics.local (unknown [189.139.41.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4127E3A6814; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 10208114392322316.12658150826083451.13981150111925692.17075848032280051 (HELO localhost.localdomain) (14019200960010552.10767360325118710.13653974494073767.14129074996539428) by 16798638027074627.11028340506394464.15314324498827284.16528564665169507 with SMTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:01:32 +0600 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:01:32 +0600 Message-Id: <7IX823EJXVWDA291@fedex.com> X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.72; A1.62; B3.01; Q3.01) X-Header-CompanyDBUserName: hpccm X-Header-MasterId: 237778 X-Header-Versions: Hewlett-Packard.1t9bn9nd3.fk@us.newsgram.hp.com X-FID: 32E37DBC-6034-30AF-B3E3-42CDEA69DCB5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: From: "Rickie Rojas" Subject: Aggressive Investors Alert Introducing the new tech giant in the making DNC MultiMedia Corp Symbol: DCNM This is a hugely undervalued Gem with high profile clients such as Microsoft, Samsung, LG, and Napster the huge volume and price spike today on the news release is a good indicator of short and long term movement. See the company's outstanding pr and pull the trigger on DCNM From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:24:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D0C28C340; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE65D3A6E2E for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.711, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JARYbX++GABU for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC05528C340 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2008 10:24:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2VHOV09009034; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VHOV5s008413; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:24:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:31 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:24:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciSrbFSsVCqv7H0SvKW6aTBZLe3ZAApS+OA References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 17:24:31.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[14908290:01C89354] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=8554; t=1206984271; x=1207848271; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=j36bw9GrLMDA3omQQZDSV7fPtwgiKC3h7A8N7Rx/RUk=; b=C4M1P/7OfJUoRFOqYmGXLtFs4fODlKrF6xnsUb7T1pwenmGU/q1LgRJHAL jArBi1lRb/0Wz7ErPLL+m/ce31Egr0LR6NMEJK22Wxp7xgibP8wSc1m/e9RU PzD+I0MkWdWLetvqqzN5OQ6tBSQAd0daE/4DtQ2EgsbJzH1n+p7lU=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jeff, > > Hi Murtaza, > > On Mar 29, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > > > In all cases in the specification HMAC is computed before > encrypting > > blocks (this is only stated earlier in the specification > when talking > > about the control communication, but is standard for HMAC use). > > > > MSC> Since the Control exchange uses stream encryption it makes most > > sense that the HMAC is calculated before encrypting. > However, for > > Test > > packets, since only part of the packet is being encrypted it is not > > clear whether the HMAC is a check for the encrypted packet > (that is it > > is calculated after encryption) or for the packet before encryption. > > If it is a signature for the encrypted packet then one can check > > integrity before decrypting and that speeds-up processing, that is > > reverse of the process for Control packets. The other way > round, the > > packet has to be decrypted first (a more expensive process) > and then > > the signature needs to be verified. > > The optimization you suggest is not without a cost. If the > data going into the HMAC and the result of the HMAC are both > transmitted in the clear, the HMAC hash function is more > susceptible to attack. If this level of optimization is > required, I suggest using open mode. > I agree that when using encrypted mode there is a reason to be paranoid and hence it is preferable to authenticate before encryption. How about the authenticated mode? The reason to use an authenticated mode could be less to do with security (and hence susceptibility) and more to do with data integrity. -Murtaza > If you believe others could be confused by the fact that it > is not explicitly stated that the HMAC is computed on the > non-encrypted message contents first (in this part of the > RFC), then I would suggest submitting an errata for the RFC. > > jeff > > > > > > > > -Murtaza > > > > So, for the test packets: In authenticated mode, only the > first block > > is used to generate the HMAC, and then only the first block is > > encrypted. > > In encrypted mode, the HMAC is computed using the first two blocks, > > and both of those blocks are encrypted. In both of these cases the > > HMAC field is set to the result of hashing the HMAC key > with the data > > in the blocks using the HMAC-SHA1 algorithm as specified. > > > > jeff > > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > >> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:01 PM > >> To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > >> Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > >> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >> > >> > >> On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > >>> Another clarification question. > >>> > >>> For Test packets the draft is not clear on the order of > encryption > >>> and > >>> authentication. One can assume that the intent was to first > >>> encrypt > >>> and then authenticate the fields which is the reverse of Control > >>> packets. It would be nice to see clarification text in > the section > >>> 4.2.1 of TWAMP and section 4.1.2 of OWAMP. > >> > >> I did not go read the TWAMP section to see if the situation is the > >> same, but for OWAMP there is no order at all. There are 3 different > >> 'modes': > >> > >> open, encrypted, authenticated. > >> > >> These modes are negotiated in the control connection, and which > >> process the individual packets go through is defined based on the > >> selected mode. > >> They are independent - there is no order to consider. > >> > >> The difference between authenticated and encrypted is that the > >> timestamp information is sent unencrypted in authenticated mode to > >> reduce the amount of time from when the timestamp was > retrieved and > >> the packet is actually sent. In encrypted mode, the entire data > >> segment is encrypted including the timestamp. > >> > >> Perhaps I'm completely missing the point? > >> > >> jeff > >> > >> > >> > >>> -Murtaza > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > >>> Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM > >>> To: Henk Uijterwaal > >>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG > >>> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Some more questions on TWAMP draft. > >>> > >>> Q1) Section 3.8 Stop Sessions mentions that command can > only be sent > >>> by > >>> the Session-Sender. I believe the authors meant > Control-Client as > >>> the > >>> Session-Sender does not exchange a control command. > >>> > >>> Q2) In the same section it mentions that NO session description > >>> record > >> > >>> can be sent, however, it also mentions that the Next SeqNo and > >>> Number > > > >>> of Skip Ranges MUST be set to 0 and those are part of the session > >>> description record! I am assuming the authors ONLY meant to > >>> exclude > >>> the no. Skip Ranges record. > >>> > >>> Q3) Is it possible to add a SID to a Start-Sessions > message? That > >>> would help limit the meaning of Active to be per SID allowing for > >>> different SIDs to be started and stopped on demand. > Sometimes one > >>> may > >>> want to start a Test Stream in response to an observed network > >>> behaviour. > >>> > >>> Q4) If the above is acceptable then I propose adding a > >>> Control-Command-type field to all response messages and hence the > >>> Accept field should be the second field. It also entails > adding a > >>> SID > >> > >>> in the Requests and Responses. > >>> > >>> -Murtaza > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > >>> Of Henk Uijterwaal > >>> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM > >>> To: Henk Uijterwaal > >>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG > >>> Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >>> > >>> IPPM Group, > >>> > >>>> This is a WGLC for the draft: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >>>> > >>>> The draft has been discussed extensively in this group > and appears > >>>> to > >> > >>>> to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it > >>> forward. > >>>> Please raise any remaining issues by Friday, March 14, 9:00 UTC. > >>>> > >>>> An URL for the draft is: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > >>> > >>> This concludes the WGLC for this draft. Two issues were > raised on > >>> the > >> > >>> list. We'll ask the authors to respond to those on the > list and to > >>> include fixes in the draft. After that we'll move the document > >>> forward. > >>> > >>> Matt & Henk > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> - > >>> - > >>> -- > >>> ------ > >>> Henk Uijterwaal Email: > >>> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > >>> RIPE Network Coordination Centre > >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > >>> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > >>> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > >>> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> - > >>> - > >>> -- > >>> ------ > >>> > >>> Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > >>> Alan Greenspan on the next > >>> elections _______________________________________________ > >>> ippm mailing list > >>> ippm@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ippm mailing list > >>> ippm@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ippm mailing list > >>> ippm@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >> > >> jeff > >> -- > >> Jeff W. Boote > >> boote@internet2.edu > >> > >> > >> > > > > jeff > > -- > > Jeff W. Boote > > boote@internet2.edu > > > > > > > > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:43:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099F03A6A83; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:43:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069AC3A6B2D for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.940, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZwjpyOkUJFV for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371633A6A83 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A462247D8E; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13023-05; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D864E47CA9; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> Message-Id: <7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:43:42 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Murtaza, On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: >> The optimization you suggest is not without a cost. If the >> data going into the HMAC and the result of the HMAC are both >> transmitted in the clear, the HMAC hash function is more >> susceptible to attack. If this level of optimization is >> required, I suggest using open mode. >> > > I agree that when using encrypted mode there is a reason to be > paranoid > and hence it is preferable to authenticate before encryption. > How about the authenticated mode? The reason to use an authenticated > mode could be less to do with security (and hence susceptibility) and > more to do with data integrity. Cracking the hash cracks it for the purposes of authenticated mode as well. (For all test packets in the session.) Besides, I think it would be confusing to do it differently in this one case, from all other cases in the protocol. I think the intent of the RFC was clear and I don't see a good reason to change it. However, I have nothing against an errata to make it more clear. jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:42:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DBE3A6AB7; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947413A6A9F for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.992 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.607, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRWulinYA0SS for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658073A6948 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2008 12:42:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2VJgfPh019106; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VJgf5t022928; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:42:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:41 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:32 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciTVszGd1Mj9cBYRRWGs3ASTxYB9wAD4CGg References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> <7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 19:42:41.0667 (UTC) FILETIME=[62175530:01C89367] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2035; t=1206992561; x=1207856561; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=N26OgSDBfp7gRQHBs9SR4yIP3AQpsJm5vL/24+VlJiw=; b=0a9xW7JvO+5gMaQMQBE+6k9cQyj8GiCZvUv/TOmqXu/i4csUmLNhTBdR8A uPGit+7gHn20u2y55QCZ0kqO1PIUZaXlxcroO/cDRXHG3K5jS4Cv5sUKbutz 3Ghod8R+CD; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jeff, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:44 AM > To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > Hi Murtaza, > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > >> The optimization you suggest is not without a cost. If the > data going > >> into the HMAC and the result of the HMAC are both > transmitted in the > >> clear, the HMAC hash function is more susceptible to > attack. If this > >> level of optimization is required, I suggest using open mode. > >> > > > > I agree that when using encrypted mode there is a reason to be > > paranoid and hence it is preferable to authenticate before > encryption. > > How about the authenticated mode? The reason to use an > authenticated > > mode could be less to do with security (and hence > susceptibility) and > > more to do with data integrity. > > Cracking the hash cracks it for the purposes of authenticated > mode as well. (For all test packets in the session.) > Yes, but as I said, in authenticated mode the HMAC could be purely for data integrity not security concerns. Besides the concern for cracking is inconsistent with the Command exchange authenticated mode that has no encryption. Which leads one to believe that authenticated mode is purely for integrity check. Although, I agree that there will be fewer command exchanges, however, admins tend to have same passwords across all devices! -Murtaza > Besides, I think it would be confusing to do it differently > in this one case, from all other cases in the protocol. I > think the intent of the RFC was clear and I don't see a good > reason to change it. However, I have nothing against an > errata to make it more clear. > > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:51:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885743A6ACE; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3C33A68D3 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:51:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.901, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6AxT6hlIsfv for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0313A6E7B for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547A647D19; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30465-06; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4C547D5B; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:50:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) In-Reply-To: References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> <7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:50:57 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: >> >> Cracking the hash cracks it for the purposes of authenticated >> mode as well. (For all test packets in the session.) >> > > Yes, but as I said, in authenticated mode the HMAC could be purely for > data integrity not security concerns. The purpose of authenticated mode is to allow data integrity and security just like encrypted mode. However, we wanted to make the measurements as accurate as possible. So, the timestamp portion of the packet is not encrypted in authenticated mode, therefore you are not timing how long it takes to encrypt the packet AND then send it. You are able to exclude the encryption time from this. In fully encrypted mode, you end up including encryption time in your measurement. Anyone 'snooping' on those packets is only able to see the 'send' timestamp, not the sequence number. This is a trade-off situation. > Besides the concern for cracking is inconsistent with the Command > exchange authenticated mode that has no encryption. Which leads > one to > believe that authenticated mode is purely for integrity check. > Although, I agree that there will be fewer command exchanges, however, > admins tend to have same passwords across all devices! What makes you say that there is no encryption? There is no difference between authenticated mode and encrypted mode in the control communication. And in the test packet format, the first block of the packet is encrypted in both authenticated mode and encrypted mode. The *only* thing different from authenticated mode and encrypted mode is that the second block of the test packets are not encrypted in authenticated mode. And that is only to permit the timestamp to be fetched after encryption for the sender. jeff -- Jeff W. Boote boote@internet2.edu _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:48:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4780028C2C1; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5DA28C2BC for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.510, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFIDLn4XRgXi for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5C928C2C1 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2008 14:48:12 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2VLmBJ8026312; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:11 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VLmB7R001239; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:48:12 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:48:01 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciTcPOeSLWOpqyhSQylG9lqnpb6QQABlHZg References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net> <90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu> <7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 21:48:10.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9AAC2A0:01C89378] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2839; t=1207000092; x=1207864092; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=/0nWp82G+8Nc35kk0B85IZo5jdPg7XKnSRvq4BzJ33M=; b=grdUCHU8SMp0ipg+XEqWRUaPHTZfJHP8DPO+9EVYdLbM/9aYuMHY77vgLK /P4fhM1PV5NqSgUj7Vwx2hBw74F3SFC4hOJwm7J1ukCxeltbAqUmQ5EofdnP 6HzcXtvGXa; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:51 PM > To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > >> > >> Cracking the hash cracks it for the purposes of > authenticated mode as > >> well. (For all test packets in the session.) > >> > > > > Yes, but as I said, in authenticated mode the HMAC could be > purely for > > data integrity not security concerns. > > The purpose of authenticated mode is to allow data integrity > and security just like encrypted mode. However, we wanted to > make the measurements as accurate as possible. So, the > timestamp portion of the packet is not encrypted in > authenticated mode, therefore you are not timing how long it > takes to encrypt the packet AND then send it. You are able to > exclude the encryption time from this. In fully encrypted > mode, you end up including encryption time in your > measurement. Anyone 'snooping' on those packets is only able > to see the 'send' timestamp, not the sequence number. This is > a trade-off situation. > > > Besides the concern for cracking is inconsistent with the Command > > exchange authenticated mode that has no encryption. Which leads > > one to > > believe that authenticated mode is purely for integrity check. > > Although, I agree that there will be fewer command > exchanges, however, > > admins tend to have same passwords across all devices! > > What makes you say that there is no encryption? There is no > difference between authenticated mode and encrypted mode in > the control communication. And in the test packet format, the > first block of the packet is encrypted in both authenticated > mode and encrypted mode. The > *only* thing different from authenticated mode and encrypted > mode is that the second block of the test packets are not > encrypted in authenticated mode. And that is only to permit > the timestamp to be fetched after encryption for the sender. > Okay, my bad, coming from an IPSec/crypto background the terms used in OWAMP are confusing. In IPSec AH is purely integrity check and ESP is purely encryption and in crypto textbooks too the terms integrity hash and encryption have distinct connotations. One can encapsulate AH within ESP (or vice versa) to get both. It is strange that authenticated mode actually performs encryption too in OWAMP! Maybe authenticated mode needs to be renamed to encapsulate the meaning better? -Murtaza > jeff > -- > Jeff W. Boote > boote@internet2.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:11:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A91D3A69A8; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E751C3A6991 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpAc4yTclEnx for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1EF28C0D6 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2008 23:11:39 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m316Bes1004656; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m316BdKC004826; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 06:11:40 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:39 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:11:29 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt thread-index: AciTcPOeSLWOpqyhSQylG9lqnpb6QQABlHZgABGPrTA= References: <47C2C60C.9070807@ripe.net> <47DE8A2D.40409@ripe.net><90EB10B5-EB5F-4364-910C-5E3ED6F607F4@internet2.edu><7978BDEA-5A54-4A81-A7DF-FF6B72B99156@internet2.edu> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" , "Jeff W. Boote" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2008 06:11:39.0778 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FC21620:01C893BF] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3836; t=1207030300; x=1207894300; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-ippm-t wamp-06.txt |Sender:=20; bh=VGgj72KyzrxGVJfUEjEVVsD2Ik5WC+lOiFByBQ68820=; b=FwFZ735UVktZmd8VMQomAgJwRT/3QKTJ2e8qDl3b6j0/kUKg9H87Si2Pfv dpjGMfIlGaYaGm6vvSc9TeZ7gjKMoTVSBVaHkxiA8u8f0n7FafrA/is3JvBj iFIMRqXNu/R9GMsaQ2Ost9vWzYqVD8oo+Jk31QdwgjqldMGGhiHMQ=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:48 PM > To: Jeff W. Boote > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu] > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:51 PM > > To: Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) > > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG > > Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-06.txt > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > > >> > > >> Cracking the hash cracks it for the purposes of > > authenticated mode as > > >> well. (For all test packets in the session.) > > >> > > > > > > Yes, but as I said, in authenticated mode the HMAC could be > > purely for > > > data integrity not security concerns. > > > > The purpose of authenticated mode is to allow data integrity and > > security just like encrypted mode. However, we wanted to make the > > measurements as accurate as possible. So, the timestamp > portion of the > > packet is not encrypted in authenticated mode, therefore > you are not > > timing how long it takes to encrypt the packet AND then > send it. You > > are able to exclude the encryption time from this. In fully > encrypted > > mode, you end up including encryption time in your > measurement. Anyone > > 'snooping' on those packets is only able to see the 'send' > timestamp, > > not the sequence number. This is a trade-off situation. > > > > > Besides the concern for cracking is inconsistent with the Command > > > exchange authenticated mode that has no encryption. > Which leads > > > one to > > > believe that authenticated mode is purely for integrity check. > > > Although, I agree that there will be fewer command > > exchanges, however, > > > admins tend to have same passwords across all devices! > > > > What makes you say that there is no encryption? There is no > difference > > between authenticated mode and encrypted mode in the control > > communication. And in the test packet format, the first > block of the > > packet is encrypted in both authenticated mode and > encrypted mode. The > > *only* thing different from authenticated mode and > encrypted mode is > > that the second block of the test packets are not encrypted in > > authenticated mode. And that is only to permit the timestamp to be > > fetched after encryption for the sender. > > > > > Okay, my bad, coming from an IPSec/crypto background the terms used in > OWAMP are confusing. In IPSec AH is purely integrity check > and ESP is > purely encryption and in crypto textbooks too the terms integrity hash > and encryption have distinct connotations. Sorry, I meant ESP has both and is similar to the encryption term for the Test stream, but AH is purely authentication and does not entail any encryption. It would be better to call the authenticated mode encrypted-ecb mode and the encrypted mode as encrypted-cbc mode, or encrypted and encrtyped-timestamp modes respectively. -Murtaza One can encapsulate AH > within ESP (or vice versa) to get both. It is strange that > authenticated mode actually performs encryption too in OWAMP! Maybe > authenticated mode needs to be renamed to encapsulate the > meaning better? > > -Murtaza > > > > jeff > > -- > > Jeff W. Boote > > boote@internet2.edu > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm