UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06

[Ballot comment]
3.2.3, 2nd paragraph: "...OWAMP/TWAMP layer SHOULD treat the
  Checksum Complement as part of the Packet Padding."

The previous paragraph said this put no new requirements on the receiver. Is the SHOULD here a new requirement, or a statement of fact? (If the latter, it should not use the 2119 keyword.)

[Ballot comment]
This document lacks sufficient justification for why the checksum trailer is needed. I would suggest a brief description of when this approach is needed.

[Ballot discuss]
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between this text in 3.2:

"As specified in Section 3.4. , the Checksum Complement should only be used in unauthenticated mode."

and this text in 3.4.1:

"A Checksum Complement MAY be used when authentication is enabled. In
  this case an intermediate entity can timestamp test packets and
  update their Checksum Complement field without modifying the HMAC."

I can see why not to use the checksum complement in encrypted mode, but don't see why it can't be used in authenticated mode for TWAMP.

This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for   

UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt

This questionnaire version is dated 24 February 2012.

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: April 2015.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Experimental, as indicated on the title page.
No changes to the protocol are required to use this option.

(2) 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:

In many IP measurement protocols, timestamps are required to calculate
packet transfer delay, and these timestamps occupy fields above the IP
layer. When implementors prefer to avoid the delay of stack processing,
it is preferred to insert the timestamps as close to the network
interface as possible, but this also requires maintaining sanity
among checksums and other integrity checks.  This memo defines one way
to assign an optional field at the end of the UDP payload of test packets
to complement the timestamp and populate that field to keep checksum accuracy.

Working Group Summary:

There has been sufficient review during 2 years of development,
and the comments were both constructive and supportive of this simple idea.
The draft can serve a useful purpose for the industry.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

One chip vendor has implemented the procedure in the draft from a hardware
perspective, and another chip vendor has indicated their plans (privately)
to do the same.  There are no known HW and SW implementations with TWAMP or
OWAMP at this time.

As far as expert reviews, there was sufficient review from the community
of TWAMP experts.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Al Morton is Shepherd, Spencer Dawkins is AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this draft at WGLC. Nits check is now clean, except
for one line which is 8 characters too long.
All my comments have been addressed, and those of the WG have been addressed, AFAICT.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

There is sufficient cross-participation between IPPM, BMWG, and TICTOC
to ensure broad review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There is one related IPR disclosure by the author's company:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2370/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer

The WG was informed of the IPR on the list, and there were no comments in response.


(9) 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?

The WG appears satisfied that this simple/valuable idea is
sufficiently described. The name of the feature was
changed to Checksum Complement from Checksum Trailer
based on WG feedback, and this appears suitable to all.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits check indicates one line is 8 characters too long.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required, and the section can be deleted.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP'
  as Informational RFC

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 2015-10-28. 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


  The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way
  Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) are used for performance
  monitoring in IP networks. Delay measurement is performed in these
  protocols by using timestamped test packets. Some implementations use
  hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate
  transmission timestamp into every outgoing OWAMP/TWAMP test packet
  during transmission.  Since these packets are transported over UDP,
  the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification.
  This document proposes to use the last 2 octets of every test packet
  as a Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect
  the checksum modification in the last 2 octets rather than in the UDP
  checksum field. The behavior defined in this document is completely
  interoperable with existing OWAMP/TWAMP implementations.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer/ballot/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2370/

This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for   

UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt

This questionnaire version is dated 24 February 2012.

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: April 2015.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page.
No changes to the protocol are required to use this option.

(2) 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:

In many IP measurement protocols, timestamps are required to calculate
packet transfer delay, and these timestamps occupy fields above the IP
layer. When implementors prefer to avoid the delay of stack processing,
it is preferred to insert the timestamps as close to the network
interface as possible, but this also requires maintaining sanity
among checksums and other integrity checks.  This memo defines one way
to assign an optional field at the end of the UDP payload of test packets
to complement the timestamp and populate that field to keep checksum accuracy.

Working Group Summary:

There has been sufficient review during 2 years of development,
and the comments were both constructive and supportive of this simple idea.
The draft can serve a useful purpose for the industry.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

One chip vendor has implemented the procedure in the draft from a hardware
perspective, and another chip vendor has indicated their plans (privately)
to do the same.  There are no known HW and SW implementations with TWAMP or
OWAMP at this time.

As far as expert reviews, there was sufficient review from the community
of TWAMP experts.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Al Morton is Shepherd, Spencer Dawkins is AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this draft at WGLC. Nits check is now clean, except
for one line which is 8 characters too long.
All my comments have been addressed, and those of the WG have been addressed, AFAICT.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

There is sufficient cross-participation between IPPM, BMWG, and TICTOC
to ensure broad review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There is one related IPR disclosure by the author's company:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2370/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer

The WG was informed of the IPR on the list, and there were no comments in response.


(9) 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?

The WG appears satisfied that this simple/valuable idea is
sufficiently described. The name of the feature was
changed to Checksum Complement from Checksum Trailer
based on WG feedback, and this appears suitable to all.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits check indicates one line is 8 characters too long.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required, and the section can be deleted.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA.

Notification list changed to draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer.shepherd@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, ietf@trammell.ch from "Brian Trammell" <ietf@trammell.ch>, "Al C. Morton" <acmorton@att.com>

This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for   

UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt

This questionnaire version is dated 24 February 2012.

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: April 2015.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page.
No changes to the protocol are required to use this option.

(2) 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:

In many IP measurement protocols, timestamps are required to calculate
packet transfer delay, and these timestamps occupy fields above the IP
layer. When implementors prefer to avoid the delay of stack processing,
it is preferred to insert the timestamps as close to the network
interface as possible, but this also requires maintaining sanity
among checksums and other integrity checks.  This memo defines one way
to assign an optional field at the end of the UDP payload of test packets
to complement the timestamp and populate that field to keep checksum accuracy.

Working Group Summary:

There has been sufficient review during 2 years of development,
and the comments were both constructive and supportive of this simple idea.
The draft can serve a useful purpose for the industry.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

One chip vendor has implemented the procedure in the draft from a hardware
perspective, and another chip vendor has indicated their plans (privately)
to do the same.  There are no known HW and SW implementations with TWAMP or
OWAMP at this time.

As far as expert reviews, there was sufficient review from the community
of TWAMP experts.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Al Morton is Shepherd, Spencer Dawkins is AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this draft at WGLC. Nits check is now clean, except
for one line which is 8 characters too long.
All my comments have been addressed, and those of the WG have been addressed, AFAICT.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

There is sufficient cross-participation between IPPM, BMWG, and TICTOC
to ensure broad review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There is one related IPR disclosure by the author's company:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2370/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer


(9) 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?

The WG appears satisfied that this simple/valuable idea is
sufficiently described. The name of the feature was
changed to Checksum Complement from Checksum Trailer
based on WG feedback, and this appears suitable to all.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits check indicates one line is 8 characters too long.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required, and the section can be deleted.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA.