Support of the IEEE 1588 Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-06

[Ballot 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  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.

[Ballot comment]
Nit on the Security Considerations section. Higher resolution timestamps provide potential vehicles for side channel attacks on remote endpoints. This probably is not a huge issue, but it might be nice to mention it.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the TWAMP-Modes subregistry of the Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/twamp-parameters/

a single, new entry is to be registered as follows:

Bit position: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PTPv2 Timestamp Capability
Semantics definition: [ See below ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the authors have suggested a value of 256 for this new entry. We note that the authors have suggested a bit position of 8 for this new entry.

IANA Question --> the TWAMP-Modes registry already has a registration for bit position 8. Do the authors want to suggest a different bit position for this entry?

IANA Question --> Usually, in the TWAMP-Modes registry the Semantics Definition points to the place in the document [ RFC-to-be ] where the semantics of the mode is defined. Do the authors wish to change the suggested entry for Semantics Definition?

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, ietf@wjcerveny.com, Bill Cerveny , draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement
  Protocol (TWAMP)'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-15. 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 describes an OPTIONAL feature for active performance
  measurement protocols allowing use of the Precision Time Protocol
  time stamp format defined in IEEE-1588v2-2008, as an alternative to
  the Network Time Protocol that is currently used.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2850/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2851/

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny. The responsible area director is
Spencer Dawkins.

This document describes an OPTIONAL feature for active performance
measurement protocols allowing use of time stamp format defined in
IEEE-1588v2-2008.

2. Review and Consensus

During the document's life as an individual submission, the document received
a small number of suggested changes, which were implemented. For adoption,
there were four e-mails of support and no dissents. Post-adoption, the
working group document was only revised once, to reflect an author change.

As indicated, this document describes an OPTIONAL feature allowing the use
of the time stamp format defined in IEEE-1588v2-2008 for active
measurement protocols and is uncontroversial.

3. Intellectual Property

The authors have confirmed that all required IPR has been disclosed.