Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Mon, 26 November 2018 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A4E130F36; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qdP7Fre_jCPc; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:54:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D436E130E54; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wAQLkJUD043201; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:54:20 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2p0r6ya2xt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:54:20 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wAQLsJMt047166; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:54:19 -0600
Received: from zlp30497.vci.att.com (zlp30497.vci.att.com [135.46.181.156]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wAQLsF6N047101; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:54:15 -0600
Received: from zlp30497.vci.att.com (zlp30497.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30497.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 76BC140141EB; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:54:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30497.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 5487540141E9; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:54:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wAQLsFwL023785; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:54:15 -0600
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wAQLs442023150; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:54:05 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEE7F1F2B; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:54:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:53:09 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03
Thread-Index: AQHUhbQMyemhs/RRPk6ubhizAP935qVilRIQ
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:54:04 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF557E4F1E@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <154325617182.8377.125843704037564868@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154325617182.8377.125843704037564868@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [212.147.28.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-26_17:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811260184
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JKyQktriwDHLkVbf31Zoc83rHr4>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:54:27 -0000
Hi Linda, thanks for your gen-art review, concise replies below, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:Linda.dunbar@huawei.com] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 1:16 PM > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03 > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=- > I8cqodaz0u_gF7v6lax31KbNDg7IGZaYBTIpuCuVOM&s=ztMoKWjFnmEbnJT2WIOzjWXVN3tlw > Ivmy8p9bKOpyzY&e=>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-?? > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2018-11-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-26 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-12-06 > > Summary: > The draft briefs how TWAMP&OWAMP work and assigned a fixed UDP ports for > TWAMP > & OWAMP Test messages [acm] Not quite right, the abstract says: This memo explains the motivation and describes the *re-assignment* of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and measurement,... > > Major issues: > Section 5.1 states that the UDP port used for TEST are negotiated, whereas > the > IANA section of this document states the explicit fixed UDP port . Does > it > mean the negotiation is no longer needed? [acm] No, we are making a the well-known port available for cases where the TWAMP systems don't wish to negotiate. > Than all TEST messages are on > the > same UDP ports? Makings it not effective in making test messages > traversing > different ECMP paths. Why? [acm] No, dynamic range still allowed, and ECMP hash calculations are unaffected. > > “ Section 3.5 [RFC5357] describes the detailed process of negotiating > the Receiver Port number, on which the TWAMP Session-Reflector will > send and receive TWAMP-Test packets. The Control-Client, acting on > behalf of the Session-Sender, proposes the Receiver port number from > the Dynamic Port range [RFC6335]: > "The Receiver Port is the desired UDP port to which TWAMP-Test > packets will be sent by the Session-Sender (the port where the > Session-Reflector is asked to receive test packets). The Receiver > Port > is also the UDP port from which TWAMP-Test packets will be sent by > the > Session-Reflector (the Session-Reflector will use the same UDP port > to > send and receive packets)." > > Minor issues: > > Does the following sentence mean the UDP port was already assigned to to > OWAMP > & TWAMP control? [acm] Yes, that's why the Abstract says *re-assignment*. > > “ Since OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control require TCP transport, they > cannot make use of the UDP ports which were originally assigned. > However, test sessions using OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test operate on UDP > transport.” > > The text then states that “Use of this UDP port is OPTIONAL in standards- > track > OWAMP and TWAMP. “ [acm] Exactly, the Dynamic range is still available, according to RFC5357. > If not using UDP ports, does it mean that the TCP ports are uses for > OWAMP-TEST > & TWAMP-TEST? [acm] No, never. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > the head note has “WAMP W-K UDP Ports” as the title which is different [acm] it says *WAMP, meaning either OWAMP or TWAMP. > from the > draft title. P.s. what does W-K mean? [acm] W-K == Well-Known
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] Genart last call review of d… Alissa Cooper