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