Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Traffic Using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-09

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-02-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Traffic Using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'Performance Measurement with
Asymmetrical Traffic Using Simple Two-Way
  Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies an optional extension to the Simple Two-way
  Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) to control the length and/or
  number of packets sent by a Session-Reflector in response to a single
  test packet from the Session-Sender during a STAMP test session.  By
  default, a STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector exchange
  packets symmetrically: the number of packets sent by the Session-
  Reflector and the Session-Sender are the same as is the length of the
  packets sent by the Session-Reflector and the Session-Sender.
  However, there are cases where a Session-Reflector responding with
  Asymmetrical Packets would ensure a closer approximation between
  active performance measurements and the conditions experienced by
  monitored application.  The STAMP extension proposed in this document
  allows the operator to establish tests where a Session-Reflector
  sends Asymmetrical Packets, packets whose length is not symmetrical
  to test packet sent by the Session-Sender and/or packets that are not
  sent in direct response to a packet received from a Session-Sender.
  The document also includes an analysis of challenges related to
  performance monitoring in a multicast network.  It specifies
  procedures and STAMP extensions to achieve more efficient
  measurements with a lesser impact on a network.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6048/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7497: Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

Thank you for preparing this version and taking care of the review.

This looks good to me. I have only some nits that you can find here:

* https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2026/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-09-rev%20Med.doc
* https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2026/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-09-rev%20Med.pdf

Feel free to submit a new version at your convenience.

I will proceed with the IETF LC for the doc.

Hi Greg, Ernesto, Henrik, Richard, and Will,

Thank you for the work put into this specification.

Please find my AD review at:
• pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-08-rev%20Med.pdf
• doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-08-rev%20Med.doc

Please let me know if any clarification is needed.

Cheers,
Med

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Issues around possible congestion impacts saw significant discussion and resulted
in guidance that has strong consensus. Not aware of any particularly rough consensus.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one implementation indicated in the "Additional Resources" section of
the datatracker page. The authors have confirmed that this is the implementation
they are aware of.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

It does mention UDP usage guidelines and discusses congestion control aspects.
An early TSV-Art review was requested in conjunction with the WGLC. It did not
find any issues beyond some editorial suggestions.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, the document is well written and provides a protocol extension to solve a
well-defined problem.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

There are congestion control considerations in this document. An early TSV-ART
review was requested to verify the approach and recommendations in the document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. It is the proper type of RFC since this is an extension to
a mature protocol.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, all the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs aside
from the one already disclosed here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6048/.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    No obvious nits. The structure and format of the document looks good. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    There is a normative reference to the informational RFC 7497, so it's a
    downref. However, the document leans quite heavily on the principles
    described in 7497 so it is not necessarily wrong.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    Yes, RFC 7497, as discussed in 15. If the reference is kept as a normative
    it should be added to the DOWNREF registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    The document requests values within existing registries (STAMP TLV Types,
    STAMP TLV Flags sub-registry, Sub-TLV Types registry). The registries are
    clearly identified.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Issues around possible congestion impacts saw significant discussion and resulted
in guidance that has strong consensus. Not aware of any particularly rough consensus.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one implementation indicated in the "Additional Resources" section of
the datatracker page. The authors have confirmed that this is the implementation
they are aware of.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

It does mention UDP usage guidelines and discusses congestion control aspects.
An early TSV-Art review was requested in conjunction with the WGLC. It did not
find any issues beyond some editorial suggestions.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, the document is well written and provides a protocol extension to solve a
well-defined problem.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

There are congestion control considerations in this document. An early TSV-ART
review was requested to verify the approach and recommendations in the document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. It is the proper type of RFC since this is an extension to
a mature protocol.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, all the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs aside
from the one already disclosed here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6048/.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    No obvious nits. The structure and format of the document looks good. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    There is a normative reference to the informational RFC 7497, so it's a
    downref. However, the document leans quite heavily on the principles
    described in 7497 so it is not necessarily wrong.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    Yes, RFC 7497, as discussed in 15. If the reference is kept as a normative
    it should be added to the DOWNREF registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    The document requests values within existing registries (STAMP TLV Types,
    STAMP TLV Flags sub-registry, Sub-TLV Types registry). The registries are
    clearly identified.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/