Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

sorry one more question: RFC7594 would be a downref and I think it is correct that this is a normative reference because it pointed to in the security sec. On the other it seems a bit weird to point normatively to the security section of an informational doc. So just double-checking if that is all right (given downrefs need to be called out in the last call, so we have to decide before I start last call)? 

Also looking at the references again, I think RFC6335 does not need to be a normative reference.

@Tianran: a downref is a normative reference to a document with a lower maturity level, so also a normative reference from a draft that is intended for Proposed Standard to an informational RFC is a downref. In the shepherd write-up you only say that there are normative reference to RFCs, however, you would next time also need to check the status of these RFCs. Thanks! Btw. could you please update the shepherd write-up?

Mirja


> Am 05.11.2018 um 04:57 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> please see replies in-line.
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
>> (IETF)
>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 2:06 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test
>> 
>> Hi authors,
>> 
>> first of all sorry for the rather long delay for this short draft. The bad
>> news it that I probably have to delay the processing even further as I
>> will not be able to join the next telechat on Nov 21 and we have to wait
>> for the telechat on Dec 6. The good news is that gives us plenty of time
>> for the IETF last call :-)
>> 
>> I reviewed this document and I don’t think there are any issues that would
>> not allow me to start the IETF last cal, but given we have time I would
>> like to ask a few questions/comments:
>> 
>> 1) The document gives plenty of background information and talks about
>> impacts, however, it says very little about why it is good to have a fixed
>> port, beside this:
>> "It may simplify some operations to have a well-
>>   known port available for the Test protocols, or for future
>>   specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default
>>   port.“
>> Is there any chance to say more than this?
> [acm] 
> yes, mentioned BBF TR-390 implementations as benefactors. 
>> 
>> 2) Also, I agree with the shepherd that I don’t think it is necessary to
>> detail the history as much as done in section 4, e.g. rather discuss the
>> why than the actually comments by Lars and Tim. Also this section is
>> called „definition“ but this background information seems to go beyond
>> just defining something.
> [acm] 
> Ok the section is now titled, Definitions and Background,
> and most of the details describing comments from Lars and Tim
> are moved to an Appendix A.
> 
>> 
>> Btw. Tianran, it would be nice if you could update your comments in the
>> shepherd write-up accordingly if they have been addressed or are obsolete.
>> Thanks!
> [acm] 
> Yes, please consider incorporating some of the details from
> my e-mail last August, thanks!
> 
>> 
>> 3) I don’t think there is any normative language require in this doc. As
>> you are „just“ stating what has been normatively defined in other
>> documents, it is actually preferred to not re-state normatively.
> [acm] 
> The Scope says: 
> 	The scope of this memo is to re-allocate well-known ports for the UDP 
> 	Test protocols that compose necessary parts of their respective 
> 	standards track protocols, OWAMP and TWAMP, along with clarifications 
> 	of the complete protocol composition for the industry.
> 
> The controversy about TWAMP composition is partly what brought us here!
> We used the term REQUIRED in the Definitions to resolve the small ambiguity
> created when OWAMP authors did not use normative language when describing
> the protocols that comprise OWAMP, and TWAMP authors followed that choice of
> wording (unfortunately).
> 
>> 
>> 4) An update in the registry does not necessary mean an „update“ of the
>> RFCs that registered that ports in the first place, especially as rfc4656
>> doesn’t even mention the UDP port at all. Of course the use of „update“ is
>> very loosely defined and can be used if that is preferred but it is not
>> strictly necessary. Or is there another reason to update these RFCs? If
>> so, it should be clearly spelled out in the draft.
> [acm] 
> Ok, drawing on the point from the Scope, and requirement Language above,
> the Abstract now ends with:
> 
> The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well-known port 
> assignments, and clarifies the complete OWAMP and TWAMP protocol composition 
> for the industry.
> 
>> 
>> 5) Given that these entries are updates it would be nice to also fill the
>> missing information about contact information and assignee in the
>> registry. Instruction for IANA would need to be added to the IANA section
>> in this case. Assignee should be the IESG and contact the IETF chair. I
>> assume the modification date will be filled by IANA respectively.
> [acm] 
> ok
> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
>> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=fczRvYcfFcuwftALPl3iddxBqrOCp
>> UTLa2qfPshPmRY&s=D-D42Pu3DFr7TAIb4ras87t2cNxyDt4UURtFGkPZDOo&e=