owamp could be extended to also support twamp

[arlake228]

From @arlake228 on March 14, 2015 12:49

Original issue 1051 created by arlake228 on 2015-01-22T18:15:35.000Z:

Describe the enhancement:

1. RFC 5357 defines a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol based on RFC 4656 OWAMP.
2. owamp could be extended to support TWAMP controllers and servers from the most of the same source code and at the same time as supporting OWAMP.

List what services, libraries, and APIs would be involved in this change:

1. owamp

Commits implementing this are available starting from https://code.google.com/r/robertshearman-owamp/source/detail?r=c6a09dd92d88516d851241db54bcf952a26e56e1&name=twamp to https://code.google.com/r/robertshearman-owamp/source/detail?r=8207494cca0d9041dc2af5161be6433c6c7eb9dd&name=twamp

Copied from original issue: perfsonar/project#1049

[arlake228]

Comment #1 originally posted by arlake228 on 2015-01-27T15:10:26.000Z:

<empty>

[rshearman]

Any feedback on the changes and the timescales for them being committed into the main owamp repository?

[bltierney]

Note the code is now here: https://github.com/rshearman/owamp/commits/twamp Hopefully we can get this integrated for the 3.6 release.

[bltierney]

and more potentially useful code is here: https://github.com/rshearman/owamp/commits/twamp-more

[mfeit-internet2]

The patched version would be a good candidate for building as a separate tool from OWAMP that can run the round trip time test. That would keep it separate from classic OWAMP in case there's a problem with the patch.

When I have some time, I'll download and build it and see how it works.

[laeti-tia]

PR https://github.com/perfsonar/owamp/pull/16 contains the changes mentioned in this issue. It needs proper integration testing before release.

[arlake228]

Should we make this an epic issue and split-up? We really shouldn't have a task as big as 21 points. Or maybe the 21 points is no longer applicable since we think the pull request looks pretty good?

[laeti-tia]

Yes, I added the 21 points to cover for work already done. All that remains is testing, so if you prefer to count only what remains we can make it 2 or 3.

There is already an EPIC at https://github.com/perfsonar/project/issues/1123

[arlake228]

I'd say mark it as 2 or 3. We really want the estimate to be mostly capturing what work is left to be done. If we were to close it out as is now this sprint would look like we got twice as much done as any other sprint which isn't really accurate since the work has been going on awhile. We probably should have been tracking it sooner so we could have captured the work being done as it happens, but all this started before we were completely ramped-up on zenhub and all that so its little bit of a special case.

[erik-geant]

this work has been integrated and merged into owamp master, which now builds both toolsets

there's still some work that can be done (e.g. ptwstream), but let's make new issues for such details ...

[laeti-tia]

Yes, follow up is on https://github.com/perfsonar/project/issues/1123