Tom, see end... > > ----- 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 > [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 > >
