----- Original Message ----- From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > Al >
