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

Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Mon, 26 November 2018 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF23130FFC; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:16:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154325617182.8377.125843704037564868@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:16:11 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/u75wXTGXOEsmLI1zb_arx1m75Tw>
Subject: [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
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 18:16:17 -0000

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.

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

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? Than all TEST messages are on the
same UDP ports? Makings it not effective in making test messages traversing
different ECMP paths. Why?

 “ 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?

 “  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. “
If not using UDP ports, does it mean that the TCP ports are uses for OWAMP-TEST
& TWAMP-TEST?

Nits/editorial comments:

the head note has “WAMP W-K UDP Ports” as the title which is different from the
draft title. P.s. what does W-K mean?