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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Mirja,

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:59 PM Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> see inline.
>
> > Am 10.11.2018 um 10:47 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <
> [e-mail]>:
> >
> > Hi Mirja, and Spencer,
> >
> > replies below, with a question for the "Outgoing AD"
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 9:22 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test
> >>
> >> 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)?
> > [acm]
> >
> > Yes, I'd like to keep the Downref, and also ask to place RFC 7594
> > on the "permanent Downref exception list". I don't know the exact
> > name of this list, but the IPPM Framework RFC 2330 was placed on it.
> >
> > @Spencer: "Outgoing AD" may be able to help us find the list above,
> > before you go please. :-)
>
> It’s called Downref registry and it's here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
> My understanding is that it will go there automatically if once referenced
> as a downref but I can double-check during the publication process.
>

Right, on the location.

I can't verify whether downrefs are automatically added or not now, but I
THOUGHT that the idea is that a downref to (say) Informational RFC F00
might be OK for draft A, but not for draft B, so this wasn't intended to
happen automatically.

If we think the downrefs to RFC F00 will always be good enough, no matter
what the referring document is, we would add the reference to the downref
registry.

Spencer


>
> >
> >>
> >> Also looking at the references again, I think RFC6335 does not need to
> be
> >> a normative reference.
> > [acm]
> > If our colleagues in IANA are ok with that, so am I.
>
> Okay. Actually we can do this later and don’t have to do it before last
> call, which I will respectively start now.
>
> Thanks!
> Mirja
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> @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?
> > [acm]
> > +1, thanks Tianran.
> >
> >>
> >> 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=
> >
>
>