Support of the IEEE 1588 Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard) No Objection
(Ben Campbell) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
Comment (2017-04-10 for -05)
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 <email@example.com> 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.
(Alissa Cooper) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection
Warren Kumari No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection
(Eric Rescorla) No Objection
Comment (2017-04-07 for -05)
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.