Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06

This shepherd writeup follows the Essay Style Document Writeup (https://www.ietf.org/chairs/document-writeups/essay-style-document-writeup/).

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Tal Mizrahi, and the responsible area director is Mirja K├╝hlewind.

This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.

The intended status of this document is Standards Track, as it defines a protocol variant that continues the evolution of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP).

The IPPM working group is also working on a companion draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang, which defines a YANG data model for STAMP. This companion draft will be sent to the IESG for publication in the future.


2. Review and Consensus

The draft was first submitted in October 2017, has been reviewed by a fair number of people in the IPPM working group, has had a fair number of supporters, and no objections from the working group.

One of the main issues that was discussed in the context of this draft is the security considerations. The IPPM minutes from IETF 103 summarize this discussion (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/minutes-103-ippm-00). Two main questions were raised: one regarding the size of the integrity protection HMAC, and the other regarding whether encryption is required for STAMP or not. Arguments were made both ways. After IETF 103 the authors proposed the solution that is in the current draft with no objections from the working group: regarding the first issue, the HMAC is based on a SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits, and regarding the second issue, the draft does not define an encryption mechanism, but states that encryption may be provided at higher layers.

Several other comments that have been raised on the mailing list have been addressed by the editors.

The current version of the draft is clear, seems to have resolved all the issues, and has the consensus of the working group.


3. Intellectual Property

An IPR poll was performed for this draft on the IPPM mailing list, and no related IPR disclosures have been submitted. The authors have confirmed on the mailing list that they are not aware of any related IPRs.


4. Other Points

The draft does not include any requests from IANA.
Back