Subject: [spring] Sequence Number in RFC 6374 and Synthetic Loss Measurement

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 13:05:10 +0700

Dear Authors,
in your presentation of this draft at IPPM WG meeting I've pointed that
assertion in Section 6 of the draft:
   The message formats for DM and LM [RFC6374] do not contain sequence
   number for probe query packets.
is not accurate. RFC 6374 allows interpretation of the Timestamp field as a
sequence number. Section 3.4 explains that QTF and RTF values could be 0,
1, 2, or 3, with 1 identifying the sequence number:
      1: Sequence number.  This value indicates that the timestamp field
      is to be viewed as a simple 64-bit sequence number.  This provides
      a simple solution for applications that do not require a real
      absolute timestamp, but only an indication of message ordering; an
      example is LM exception detection.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Rakesh Gandhi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:51:30 -0500

Thanks Greg for your review comments.

Right, the RFC 6374 DM and LM messages can carry either sequence number or
timestamp but not both. There might be some cases where both are desired.
The proposed sequence number TLV is optional and can be used with
timestamps in DM and LM messages. We can clarify the text in the next
update of the draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm/>.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 1:06 AM Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> is not accurate. RFC 6374 allows interpretation of the Timestamp field as
> a sequence number. Section 3.4 explains that QTF and RTF values could be 0,
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>