Skip to main content

Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features
RFC 6038

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
09 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2015-10-14
09 (System) Notify list changed from ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets@ietf.org to (None)
2010-10-11
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-11
09 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6038' by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-10
09 (System) RFC published
2010-08-18
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-08-18
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-08-18
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-18
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-08-17
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-08-17
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-08-17
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-08-17
09 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-08-17
09 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-08-17
09 Lars Eggert State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2010-08-17
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-09.txt
2010-08-16
09 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-08-16
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Shawn Emery.
2010-08-14
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-08.txt
2010-08-13
09 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12
2010-08-12
09 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-11
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-08-11
09 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
[See also Peter's Comment]

Section 4.2.1

There is a bit of a 2119 mess as follows...

  When simultaneously using the RECOMMENDED truncation …
[Ballot comment]
[See also Peter's Comment]

Section 4.2.1

There is a bit of a 2119 mess as follows...

  When simultaneously using the RECOMMENDED truncation process in TWAMP
  section 4.2.1 [RFC5357] AND Reflect octets mode, the Session-
  Reflector MUST reflect the designated octets from the Session-
  Sender's test packet in the "Packet Padding (from Session-Sender)"
  Field, and MAY re-use additional Packet Padding from the Session-
  Sender.


I think "AND" is not a 2119 term, and "RECOMMENDED" is used here simply
to report on what RFC 5357 says. How about...

  Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5356] recommends a truncation process for use in
  TWAMP. When that process is used in conjunction with the Reflect
  octets mode, the Session-Reflector MUST reflect the designated octets
  from the Session-Sender's test packet in the "Packet Padding (from
  Session-Sender)" Field, and MAY re-use additional Packet Padding from
  the Session-Sender.

The problem with the use of "RECOMMENDED" shows up in a number of other
places. It also seems to encourage the use of other non-2119 words (such
as "IF" in Section 3.3).
2010-08-11
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-11
09 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-08-11
09 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-08-11
09 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
1) It would be helpful to include a little explanation as to why the symmetric-size option is needed, probably in paragraph 4 of …
[Ballot comment]
1) It would be helpful to include a little explanation as to why the symmetric-size option is needed, probably in paragraph 4 of section 1.
2) I'm not sure what RFC???? refers to; it this an internet-draft?
2010-08-11
09 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington
2010-08-11
09 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-08-10
09 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
1. There are numerous instances of the text "the RECOMMENDED truncation process in TWAMP section 4.2.1 [RFC5357]"; there is no need …
[Ballot comment]
1. There are numerous instances of the text "the RECOMMENDED truncation process in TWAMP section 4.2.1 [RFC5357]"; there is no need for the word "recommended" to be all-caps here, because the normative language already exists in RFC 5357.

2. Some of the typography is non-standard, such as "*continues*" and "IF" and "AND" and "BOTH"; it's better to provide emphasis using normal English words, such as "it is important to note that X continues" and "if and only if".
2010-08-10
09 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot discuss]
This specification states that "the Reflect octets mode re-designates the original TWAMP-Test (and OWAMP-Test) Packet Padding Field (see section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656 …
[Ballot discuss]
This specification states that "the Reflect octets mode re-designates the original TWAMP-Test (and OWAMP-Test) Packet Padding Field (see section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656])".  Therefore it appears that this specification formally updates RFC 4656. However, the document header notes only that it updates RFC 5357.
2010-08-10
09 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-08-09
09 Ron Bonica [Ballot comment]
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 738, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
2010-08-09
09 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-08-09
09 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
Nits says:

Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 738, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
2010-08-09
09 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-08-07
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
This field communicates the length of the padding in the TWAMP-Test Packet that
  the Session-Sender expects to be reflected, and the length …
[Ballot comment]
This field communicates the length of the padding in the TWAMP-Test Packet that
  the Session-Sender expects to be reflected, and the length of octets
  that the Session-Reflector SHALL return in include in its TWAMP-Test

This doesn't read well. I think you should either delete "return in" or "include in".

  packet format (see section 4.2).


3.4.  Additional considerations

  A Control-Client conforming to
  this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore the values in the higher bits
  of the Modes Field, or it MAY support other features that are
  communicated in those bit positions.  The other bits are available
  for future protocol extensions.

Is it Ok for this document to define this? I think this is already defined in the base spec.


6.2.  Registry Contents

  TWAMP Modes Registry is recommended to be augmented as follows:

  Value  Description            Semantics Definition
  0      Reserved

  1      Unauthenticated        RFC4656, Section 3.1

  2      Authenticated          RFC4656, Section 3.1

  4      Encrypted              RFC4656, Section 3.1

  8      Unauth. TEST protocol,  RFC5618, Section 3.1 (3)
          Auth. CONTROL
  16    Individual Session      RFC????, Section 3.1
          Control                bit position (4)

Please don't repeat existing registry entries in the IANA Considerations section. The current list is maintained by IANA and any list specified in an RFC can quickly get out of date.
2010-08-07
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2010-08-04
09 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-07-14
09 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12 by Lars Eggert
2010-07-14
09 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2010-07-14
09 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2010-07-14
09 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2010-07-14
09 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2010-07-14
09 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-07-12
09 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Parameters" registry
located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/twamp-parameters/twamp-parameters.xhtml …
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Parameters" registry
located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/twamp-parameters/twamp-parameters.xhtml
sub-registry "TWAMP-Modes"

Value Description Semantics Definition Reference
----- ----------- -------------------- ---------
tbd(32) Reflect Octets section 3.1 [RFC-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-07]
Capability new bit position (5)
tbd(64) Symmetrical Size section 3.1 [RFC-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-07]
Sender Test Packet Format new bit position (6)


We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2010-07-01
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2010-07-01
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2010-06-30
09 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-06-30
09 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-06-30
09 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
09 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
09 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-06-30
09 (System) Last call text was added
2010-06-30
09 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-06-30
09 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
09 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
09 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?

There is a reference to RFC5226 which is not used anywhere. THis
can be removed by the editor.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes
Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state?

No

(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 appears to be correct.

(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 two
closely-related features for TWAMP: an optional capability where the
responder host returns some of the command octets or padding octets
to the controller, and an optional sender packet format that ensures
equal test packet sizes are used in both directions.


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
2010-06-30
09 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-06-30
09 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-06-28
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-07.txt
2010-05-31
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt
2010-04-20
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-05.txt
2010-02-28
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-04.txt
2009-10-23
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03.txt
2009-07-13
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-02.txt
2009-03-07
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-01.txt
2008-10-27
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-00.txt