Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 05 December 2018 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 47266130E0E; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:51:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=WSpDI0yA; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=oWjZC/+P
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 Y0HKbtzl_NmT; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3F79130E18; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C20E218C9; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:51:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Dec 2018 20:51:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=r sSMmPTX5De1ysxtQRKHWlvsXQ1V7FApBwLey19Wu38=; b=WSpDI0yAOLQaoAYL+ IusKFqUxBI71wtlAKXIcW8dPFpCJD51bnrpfX4j7Kco3ofAFCSdWfvYpI2uNskpg FefNnpW6ro/Bhc+kJOnlSltnHEMGK62q9Gb/GZUxgc0hvbt3ZKeHvkc84NY1j2Qy 3Q3Qr6IrrzqT/+HoWydz/AH3voJBL3j9Ivq3IzMcMRGiJPTXGpcCHDzTwPmNyzWJ W3KcpOrdgdtGFFxAnr+kINXrp99HDv/z18oINjZ/9/Ch+Xnzzl5yqL2NNs5dRgar xOkEyb86vl3NdIuRsHCopGwN8j1jpxbLbNWsyQL1XSRfAGwkPwMAXRkzg3pAQfbY z8fEA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=rsSMmPTX5De1ysxtQRKHWlvsXQ1V7FApBwLey19Wu 38=; b=oWjZC/+PqLLwA5QFYJGb4Ruf/cP5xpAC37ciYTa/t0TSJHJXOMalZdq2s GlIFM6Ja+E2e67wtSim6o80IS+a8DzxRzdaHoASqI88SA7fM6hoBNViRlo9gSAUi Zj9rBDqDZ9lQhHVD2j+3HM0fO7X4M9P+15UAopgHF8U4RiJbScvzeom1xNeN2FdH hnlxLReFmQy+AeTyrYdemcUYg8Zh+v0/h0JLEVY9Ws09Z2uTj1tmTTsNQ9K6O2EK VbHVkLSUNtmNiVQMyPkdS4rM6XgM6Dt861qnCBYRNMRX6Nky4eoQ28lPNiOLKOjI lDmyVHvM/1M4YooO3/IUN8M8MhE7w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MS8HXDQEcLWyUo1MlE9VY7Kkz07zycD_2QkhjboDlAp1m8_bwxYa6g>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MS8HXHgYcy_5Xxv9BzyLIjkNRJUnHnAKCQsE14XpwZJsWc0KoinKKg> <xmx:MS8HXJZOiMLsjgjXe5Nc9Rqjtp5ElZTZTTUJfZmOo1tlXg7z6SSxVQ> <xmx:MS8HXHQgGez_tONhUUlY9dgjxRniGBFvF1BL6vnV33Zme2_XsXFfEQ> <xmx:MS8HXESc3T9Dm6z2bPNZM3ujPR8JGgx8RXpi7Kbnr9AMzihwNGy6Lw> <xmx:MS8HXDTLEdijsBpssF2SgXQEJfDOTZMjPkvviwrkxdGmw0LIfMCaMg> <xmx:Mi8HXA5P-LKq2EVs_7xRz4YseJoXHDyQijBQZ697UpKVOALwUErvag>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.89]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6EABF10386; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:51:45 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF557E4F1E@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:51:43 -0500
Cc: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <446CAE46-BB93-43E2-A98D-02381E22AA12@cooperw.in>
References: <154325617182.8377.125843704037564868@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF557E4F1E@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ixO8-kHSQr9zr-6bgKzIq-1oy8Y>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 01:51:52 -0000

Linda, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for clarifying Linda’s questions. I’ve entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 4:54 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm