Hi, I’ll have a review of the changes shortly. Just wanted to acknowledge I’ve seen this mail ;)
Thanks, Jouni > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote: > > I don't know why this email keeps getting cut off! > > I am attaching my response in a text file. > > Sigh. > > Thanks, > > Nalini Elkins > Inside Products, Inc. > www.insidethestack.com > (831) 659-8360 > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com> > To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com>; General Area Review Team > <gen-art@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option....@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option....@ietf.org> > Cc: Michael Ackermann <mackerm...@bcbsm.com>; Robert Hamilton > <rhamil...@cas.org>; MORTON ALFRED C (AL) <acmor...@att.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:03 AM > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time > > Resending. Somehow the last email was cut off. > > Nalini > > From: "nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com> > To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com>; General Area Review Team > <gen-art@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option....@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option....@ietf.org> > Cc: Michael Ackermann <mackerm...@bcbsm.com>; Robert Hamilton > <rhamil...@cas.org>; MORTON ALFRED C (AL) <acmor...@att.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:59 AM > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time > > Jouni, > > Here is the thread for your second major comment: > > Major comment #2 from you: > > >2) The PDM option relation to actual "server" time is somewhat confusing and > >the 5-tuple does not allow me to detect the real relationship between the > >>server/application action that caused the generation of the packet and the > >PDM within the packet. This is specifically an issue with > >transport/application protocols >that multiplex/interleave multiple > >application streams into one transport. I have no idea of the actual > >individual application time since the packets get generated >independent of > >the processing of a single thread. I would welcome some discussion around > >here. Section 1.4 last paragraph is going to this direction but is not > >>sufficient IMHO. > > Yes, you are, of course, correct that all traffic will flow between the > matching ports at the two endpoints. The 5-tuples will match regardless of > the application. > > The thing is that we never intended that PDM would distinguish between > applications using the same 5-tuple. That is, it is a feature, not a bug. > > What PDM WILL tell you is whether the problem is in the network or the host. > In our experience, which is primarily on networks for large data centers, > there is a different group which is involved to troubleshoot the problem > depending on the nature of the problem. That is, do I get the application > developers on the line or the team that deals with the routers & > infrastructure. > > One of the important functions of PDM is to allow you to do quick triage so > that you can get the right SWAT team going. PDM does not tell you if the > problem is in the IP stack or the application or buffer allocation. PDM > also does not tell you which of the network segments or middle boxes is at > fault. The reason for PDM is to get the right specialists in place who can > then be dispatched to investigate their area. > > In our experience, valuable time is often lost at this first stage of triage. > Both the network group and the application group have quite a few > specialized tools at their disposal to further investigate their own areas. > > I am adding some of this verbiage to section 1.4. Please see below: > > CURRENT > ----------- > > 1.4 Rationale for defined solution > > The current IPv6 specification does not provide timing nor a similar > field in the IPv6 main header or in any extension header. So, we > define the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics destination option > (PDM). > > Advantages include: > > 1. Real measure of actual transactions. > 2. Independence from transport layer protocols. > 3. Ability to span organizational boundaries with consistent > instrumentation > 4. No time synchronization needed between session partners > 5. Ability to handle all transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc) > in a uniform way > > The PDM provides the ability to determine quickly if the (latency) > problem is in the network or in the server (application). More > intermediate measurements may be needed if the host or network > discrimination is not sufficient. At the client, TCP/IP stack time > vs. application time may still need to be broken out by client > software. > > > NEW > ---- > > 1.4 Rationale for defined solution > > The current IPv6 specification does not provide timing nor a similar > field in the IPv6 main header or in any extension header. So, we > define the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics destination option > (PDM). > > Advantages include: > > 1. Real measure of actual transactions. > 2. Independence from transport layer protocols. > 3. Ability to span organizational boundaries with consistent > instrumentation > 4. No time synchronization needed between session partners > 5. Ability to handle all transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc) > in a uniform way > > The PDM provides the ability to determine quickly if the (latency) > problem is in the network or in the server (application). That is, > it is a fast way to do triage. > > One of the important functions of PDM is to allow you to do quickly dispatch > the right set of diagnosticians. Within network or server latency, > there may be many components. The job of the diagnostician is to rule > each one out until the culprit is found. > > How PDM fits into this diagnostic picture is that PDM will quickly tell > you how to escalate. PDM will point to either the network area or the > server area. Within the server latency, PDM does not tell you if the > bottleneck > is in the IP stack or the application or buffer allocation. Within the > network latency, > PDM does not tell you which of the network segments or middle boxes is at > fault. > > What PDM will tell you is whether the problem is in the network or the > server. In our experience, > there is often a different group which is involved to troubleshoot the > problem depending on the > nature of the problem. That is, the problem may be escalated to the > application developers > or the team that deals with the routers and infrastructure. Both the network > group and the > application group have quite a few specialized tools at their disposal to > further investigate their > own areas. What is missing is the first step, which PDM provides. > > In our experience, valuable time is often lost at this first stage of triage. > PDM is expected to > reduce this time substantially. > > Thanks, > > Nalini Elkins > Inside Products, Inc. > www.insidethestack.com > (831) 659-8360 > > ________________________________ > > From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> > To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option....@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:14 AM > Subject: Gen-ART review of > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/ar ea/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05 > Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen > Review Date: 9/23/2016 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-28 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: The draft needs some work. > > Major issues: > > > I have two technical issues here: > > > 1) There is no mention of what is the time reference plane for internal time > stamping. All other timing and synchronization related documents I am aware > of (at least outside IETF) describe it very clearly where in the > processing/packet handling the time stamp is to be taken. Now the document > gives me no idea as an implementer where that should take place. At least it > makes it hard to calculate the *network* RTT precisely. > > > 2) The PDM option relation to actual "server" time is somewhat confusing and > the 5-tuple does not allow me to detect the real relationship between the > server/application action that caused the generation of the packet and the > PDM within the packet. This is specifically an issue with > transport/application protocols that multiplex/interleave multiple > application streams into one transport. I have no idea of the actual > individual application time since the packets get generated independent of > the processing of a single thread. I would welcome some discussion around > here. Section 1.4 last paragraph is going to this direction but is not > sufficient IMHO. > > > Minor issues: > > > 1) This is a larger editorial issue. The document is far too long with a lot > of repetition considering it describes only one IPv6 destination option. It > is a writing style issue and I am fully aware of that. I have proposals how > to cut text in the editorial comments section. > > > 2) Section 1.2 3rd paragraph talks about IoT and that speed matters there. I > find this too generalized statement. There are many other things that matter > in this application domain and speed might not be that important as being > able to send/receive that one to two bytes of data in a given time window. I > suggest removing this paragraph. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > 1) Section 1.4 numbered list: add missing full stops. > > > 2) Section 3.2: remove > "The 5-tuple consists of > the source and destination IP addresses, the source and destination > ports, and the upper layer protocol (ex. TCP, ICMP, etc)." > > since this is unnecessary repetition. > > 3) Section 3.2: remove > "Operating systems MUST NOT implement a single > counter for all connections." > > Seems again like unnecessary repetition to previous sentence. > > > 4) Section 3.2 again unnecessary repetition of IPv6 basics that can be read > from RFC2460. Suggest strongly to remove: > "This indicates the > following processing requirements: > > 00 - skip over this option and continue processing the header. > > RFC2460 [RFC2460] defines other values for the Option Type field. > These MUST NOT be used in the PDM." > > > and > > "The > possible values are as follows: > > 0 - Option Data does not change en-route > > 1 - Option Data may change en-route > > The three high-order bits described above are to be treated as part > of the Option Type, not independent of the Option Type. That is, a > particular option is identified by a full 8-bit Option Type, not just > the low-order 5 bits of an Option Type." > > > 5) Section 3.3 same as in comment 4). Suggest strongly removing: > "This follows the order defined in RFC2460 [RFC2460] > IPv6 header > > Hop-by-Hop Options header > > Destination Options header <-------- > > Routing header > > Fragment header > > Authentication header > > Encapsulating Security Payload header > > Destination Options header <------------ > > upper-layer header" > > > 6) Suggest removing entire Section 3.4 and moving the following text to > Section 3.3: > "PDM MUST be placed before the ESP header in > order to work. If placed before the ESP header, the PDM header will > flow in the clear over the network thus allowing gathering of > performance and diagnostic data without sacrificing security." > > > 7) Section 3.6 suggest removing the following text. I see no value it would > add to what has already been said: > "As with all other destination options extension headers, the PDM is > for destination nodes only. As specified above, intermediate devices > MUST neither set nor modify this field." > > > 8) Section 3.6 suggest removing the following 5-tuple text as it has already > been described earlier in Section 2: > "The 5-tuple is: > > SADDR : IP address of the sender SPORT : Port for sender DADDR : IP > address of the destination DPORT : Port for destination PROTC : > Protocol for upper layer (ex. TCP, UDP, ICMP)" > > > 9) Sections 4.2 and 4.3 suggest removing them entirely. I see what value > these sections add. I acknowledge they are good to know information of timer > hardware implementation difference but do not really add value on the on-wire > encoding of the PDM option. > > > 10) Section 4.4 suggest removing the entire section. Time Base was already > described in detail enough in Section 3.2. > > > 11) Section 4.5 time base for picoseconds is 11 not 00. > > > 12) Section 4.5 suggest removing the following text, since it does not add > any more clarity to what has already been said in my opinion. This is because > all the examples follow nice nybble increment in scaling: > "Sample binary values (high order 16 bits taken) > > 1 psec 1 0001 > 1 nsec 3E8 0011 1110 1000 > 1 usec F4240 1111 0100 0010 0100 0000 > 1 msec 3B9ACA00 0011 1011 1001 1010 1100 1010 0000 0000 > 1 sec E8D4A51000 1110 1000 1101 0100 1010 0101 0001 0000 0000 0000" > > > 12) Section 4.6 I do not understand why this section is here. I strongly > suggest removing it. Sections 4.5 and 3.2 already describe how I would encode > the delta time using scaling as a separate fields not embedded (option fields > ScaleDTLR and ScaleDTLS). Did I misunderstand something here? > > > 13) Section 5 suggest removing the following text because of it repeating > what has already been said earlier: > "Each packet, in addition to the PDM contains information on the > sender and receiver. As discussed before, a 5-tuple consists of: > > SADDR : IP address of the sender > SPORT : Port for sender > DADDR : IP address of the destination > DPORT : Port for destination > PROTC : Protocol for upper layer (ex. TCP, UDP, ICMP) > > It should be understood that the packet identification information is > in each packet. We will not repeat that in each of the following > steps." > > > 14) Section 5.3 suggest merging the following text into one example and do > necessary rewording. There is no need to do the same calculation twice on > almost adjacent lines: > > "Sending time : packet 2 - receive time : packet 1 > > We will call the result of this calculation: Delta Time Last Received > (DELTATLR) > > That is: > > Delta Time Last Received = (Sending time: packet 2 - receive time: > packet 1)" > > > 15) Expand RTT and PSN on their first use. > > > Phew.. after all this I found the document good reading and most likely a > useful tool to be used. > > > Regards, > > Jouni > > > > > <serverTimeComments.txt> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art