Re: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07.txt> (Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Data Model) to Proposed Standard

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom, see end...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 1:19 AM
> 
> 
> > ...
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> "The new well-known port (862) MAY be used.";
> > > >> This was allocated in 2008 which seems to stretch the meaning of
> ‘new'
> > >
> > > [mj] Al, do you want to comment on this?
> > >
> > [acm]
> > Yes, I'll comment.
> >
> > The UDP well-known port will have a new allocation,
> > changing from TWAMP-CONTROL to TWAMP-TEST.
> >
> > Incidentally, the progress of that draft is also a dependency,
> > but it is ready to ship (a small typo was identified in London,
> > and the new draft has been available since).
> 
> Al
> 
> In which case, I think that that draft
> 
>  draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test
> 
> needs to be a Normative Reference from
> 
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
> 
> and should appear in the description clause, replacing the reference to
> 'new port'
> 
> along with a note up-front to the RFC Editor asking them to replace all
> mentions of
> draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test
> with the RFC number of that I-D when it is allocated.
> 
> I find that the use of 'new' is rarely a good idea - road signs near me
> talk of a 'new' road layout that is now 10 years old - unless there is a
> clear date, explicit or implicit associated with it; and the
> reallocation of the use of a port is IMHO a significant change that
> needs calling out - the YANG module makes references to RFC 5357 and I
> think it is asking too much for users to track down another RFC that
> updates RFC 5357 in order to see the change.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 


[acm] 
I suggest:
The well-known port (862) allocated in RFC YYYY MAY be used.

RFC Editor: replace RFC YYYY with the RFC number of 
draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test when it is allocated.


> > Al
> >