Individual Session Control Feature for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
RFC 5938
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
07 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-08-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 5938' by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-08-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-08-11
|
07 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-04-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-04-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2010-04-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-04-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-04-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-04-13
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-04-12
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-04-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-04-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-04-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-04-09
|
07 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-04-09
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-04-08 |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-07.txt |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2010-04-08
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-06.txt |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I support Sean's Discuss on HMAC pecification. |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-08
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] I support Sean's Discuss, and the spec needs to point back to the original RFCs so that the semantics of HMAC and other … [Ballot comment] I support Sean's Discuss, and the spec needs to point back to the original RFCs so that the semantics of HMAC and other fields are adequately specified for the new commands. Secondly, I found this text a bit odd: o If the RECOMMENDED REFWAIT timer is implemented, it SHOULD be enforced when any test session is in-progress (started and not stopped). The text should probably read "If the REFWAIRT timer is implemented ..." Earlier text already recommends REFWAIT to be implemented, it should not be repeated here. |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] The HMAC algorithm used in section 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 needs to be specified. I assume it's the same one that's specified in … [Ballot discuss] The HMAC algorithm used in section 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 needs to be specified. I assume it's the same one that's specified in [RFC4656]/[RFC5357], but I'd prefer an explicit statement that says as much. Please either add a normative reference to the HMAC algorithm or a pointer to the appropriate section in [RFC4656]/[RFC5357]. |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-04-07
|
07 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] A couple minor edits: s/must be one or greater/MUST be one or greater/g s/one or more the sessions/one or more of the sessions/g |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] A few nits you might sort out along the way... I don't think that using 2119 language in the Abstract or Introduction is … [Ballot comment] A few nits you might sort out along the way... I don't think that using 2119 language in the Abstract or Introduction is very appropriate. That language is really intended for specifying protocol behavior. --- Section 1 This memo is intended to be an update to the TWAMP core protocol specified in [RFC5357]. It is not required to implement the feature described in this memo to claim compliance with [RFC5357]. It is a bit late for intentions :-) I think this is an update fair and square. The second sentence could also do with some polish. What is not required to implement the feature? --- It is not immediately clear to me whether this feature also applies to OWAMP. I think not, so it is slightly confusing that Section 1 says... This memo describes an OPTIONAL feature for TWAMP. TWAMP (and OWAMP) start all previously requested and accepted test sessions at once. --- Section 2 The scope of the memo is currently limited to specifications of the following features: So at what point might it change? --- My Discuss used to read... A small issue I would like to clarify before supporting the publication of this document. In Section 1 you have... Implementers of this feature may also wish to implement the "Reflect Octets" feature, described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets], once it has been published as an RFC. This feature allows a Control- Client to insert a locally-specified request number into the Request- TW-Session command (in octets originally designated MBZ=Must Be Zero), and a compliant Server will return the request number in its reply (Accept message). The Reflect Octets feature makes multiple simultaneous session requests possible, and supports the operation of many simultaneous test sessions (similar to the goal of this memo). Do I read this to mean that the working group is developing two solutions to the same problem? One (the other) having wider applicability. Can you clarify the working group thinking on this? - Al has clarified for me that there is no overlap between the - work, but it would be really nice if the quoted paragraph - could be rewritten to avoid implying that there are two - different solutions to the same problems. |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Discuss reduced to a comment after an exchange with Al Morton |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] A few nits you might sort out along the way... I don't think that using 2119 language in the Abstract or Introduction is … [Ballot comment] A few nits you might sort out along the way... I don't think that using 2119 language in the Abstract or Introduction is very appropriate. That language is really intended for specifying protocol behavior. --- Section 1 This memo is intended to be an update to the TWAMP core protocol specified in [RFC5357]. It is not required to implement the feature described in this memo to claim compliance with [RFC5357]. It is a bit late for intentions :-) I think this is an update fair and square. The second sentence could also do with some polish. What is not required to implement the feature? --- It is not immediately clear to me whether this feature also applies to OWAMP. I think not, so it is slightly confusing that Section 1 says... This memo describes an OPTIONAL feature for TWAMP. TWAMP (and OWAMP) start all previously requested and accepted test sessions at once. --- Section 2 The scope of the memo is currently limited to specifications of the following features: So at what point might it change? |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] A small issue I would like to clarify before supporting the publication of this document. In Section 1 you have... Implementers of … [Ballot discuss] A small issue I would like to clarify before supporting the publication of this document. In Section 1 you have... Implementers of this feature may also wish to implement the "Reflect Octets" feature, described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets], once it has been published as an RFC. This feature allows a Control- Client to insert a locally-specified request number into the Request- TW-Session command (in octets originally designated MBZ=Must Be Zero), and a compliant Server will return the request number in its reply (Accept message). The Reflect Octets feature makes multiple simultaneous session requests possible, and supports the operation of many simultaneous test sessions (similar to the goal of this memo). Do I read this to mean that the working group is developing two solutions to the same problem? One (the other) having wider applicability. Can you clarify the working group thinking on this? |
|
2010-04-06
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-04-03
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 3.2. Start-N-Sessions Command with Individual Session Control The message is terminated with a single block HMAC, as illustrated above. How is … [Ballot comment] 3.2. Start-N-Sessions Command with Individual Session Control The message is terminated with a single block HMAC, as illustrated above. How is this calculated? I suspect you meant HMAC as defined in Section 3.2 of RFC 4656, but it would be good to say this explicitly somewhere in the document (Somewhere around Introduction? HMAC is used in several places in the document.) |
|
2010-04-03
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-04-01
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-03-31
|
07 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-03-31
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-04-08 by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-03-31
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-05.txt |
|
2010-03-31
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Waiting for revision or RFC Ed Note for gen-art review. |
|
2010-03-19
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
|
2010-03-15
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-03-10
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA questions/comments: - IANA has no "bit position" registry for TWAMP. Where exactly is this "bit position" supposed to be registered? The TWAMP-Modes registry is … IANA questions/comments: - IANA has no "bit position" registry for TWAMP. Where exactly is this "bit position" supposed to be registered? The TWAMP-Modes registry is not defined as a bit registry, but a numeric registry. If it's meant as a bit registry then it needs to be fixed. Section 6.1 does seem to imply the registry is not set up correctly. - The TWAMP-Control Command Numbers registry appears to only contain space for 16 entries (0-15). If it's supposed to contain 256 as specified in section 6.1 then this registry also needs to be corrected. Action 1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "TWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/twamp-parameters/twamp-parameters.xhtml Value Description Semantics Definition Reference ------ ----------------- --------------------- --------- TBD(7) Start-N-Sessions Section 3.2 [RFC-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04] TBD(8) Start-N-Ack Section 3.3 [RFC-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04] TBD(9) Stop-N-Sessions Section 3.4 [RFC-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04] TBD(10) Stop-N-Ack Section 3.5 [RFC-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "TWAMP-Modes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/twamp-parameters/twamp-parameters.xhtml Value Description Semantics Definition Reference ------ ----------------- --------------------- --------- TBD(16) Individual Session Section 3.1 [RFC-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04] Control bit position (4) We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
|
2010-03-03
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
|
2010-03-03
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
|
2010-03-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-03-01
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-02-28
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04.txt |
|
2010-02-19
|
07 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-19
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-02-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Document sheperd is Henk Uijterwaal. He would not have bothered to write this note if he didn't believe that the document was ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? This is a small feature request. About half a dozen people have read the document and confirmed that this request will work without affecting current implementations. The request itself seems to be a useful enhancement. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No, there are no such concerns. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Decent, with some 6 members of the group reviewing it. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? All except a complaint about the boilerplate. This can be fixed by the editor easily. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? Yes, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets. This draft has an ETA of Q1/2010. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes, it exists and appears to be complete and consistent (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The IETF has completed its work on the core specification of TWAMP - the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol. This memo describes a new feature for TWAMP, that gives the controlling host the ability to start and stop one or more individual test sessions using Session Identifiers. The base capability of the TWAMP protocol requires all test sessions previously requested and accepted to start and stop at the same time. Working Group Summary The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noticing. Document Quality Good |
|
2010-02-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-02-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-17
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-03.txt |
|
2009-10-23
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02.txt |
|
2009-09-08
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-03-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-01.txt |
|
2008-10-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-00.txt |