Subject: [ippm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:18:22 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-05: No Objection

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

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good feedback from Jon Mitchell, in his OPS-DIR review:

Indeed, TWAMP Test, and the time stamp format to be used, may be
controlled by means other than TWAMP Control, e.g., local configurable
knob exposed via data model or CLI. I'll work on text updates for the
next version.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

    Reviewer: Jon Mitchell
    Review result: Has Nits

    I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate's

    ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
    IESG.  These
    comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
    aspects of the
    IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
    included in AD reviews
    during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat
    these comments
    just like any other last call comments.

    Ready with Nits - this draft adds the ability to use PTP timestamps
as
    an alternative to NTP timestamps for active performance measurement
    protocols OWAMP and TWAMP.  Although this draft does a good job of
    discussing interoperability for both sides of the session having or
    not having support for this operational capability, in several
places
    it states that if a send/receiver support this capability it must
be
    set to 1 in the flags.  However, only for TWAMP Light mode, this
seems
    configurable.  This may just be my interpretation, but it probably
    should state that local implementations MAY provide a configurable
    knob to not negotiate PTPv2 timestamps in section 2.1 and 2.2 even
if
    the capability is supported by the implementation.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:40:49 -0700

Hi Benoit,
thank you for the review and gentle reminder. I've prepared text to address
Jon's suggestion by adding the following text:

   Implementations of OWAMP and/or TWAMP MAY provide a configuration
   knob to bypass the timestamp format negotiation process and to use
   the locally configured values instead.

Hope it captures the idea.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:33:20 -0700

Hi Benoit,
the new version of the draft just been uploaded. It includes the the text
to address the comment by Jon Mithchell.

Regards,
Greg