Hi Linda, thanks for your gen-art review, concise replies below, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:Linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 1:16 PM > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > ippm@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03 > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=- > I8cqodaz0u_gF7v6lax31KbNDg7IGZaYBTIpuCuVOM&s=ztMoKWjFnmEbnJT2WIOzjWXVN3tlw > Ivmy8p9bKOpyzY&e=>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-?? > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2018-11-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-26 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-12-06 > > Summary: > The draft briefs how TWAMP&OWAMP work and assigned a fixed UDP ports for > TWAMP > & OWAMP Test messages [acm] Not quite right, the abstract says: This memo explains the motivation and describes the *re-assignment* of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and measurement,... > > Major issues: > Section 5.1 states that the UDP port used for TEST are negotiated, whereas > the > IANA section of this document states the explicit fixed UDP port . Does > it > mean the negotiation is no longer needed? [acm] No, we are making a the well-known port available for cases where the TWAMP systems don't wish to negotiate. > Than all TEST messages are on > the > same UDP ports? Makings it not effective in making test messages > traversing > different ECMP paths. Why? [acm] No, dynamic range still allowed, and ECMP hash calculations are unaffected. > > “ Section 3.5 [RFC5357] describes the detailed process of negotiating > the Receiver Port number, on which the TWAMP Session-Reflector will > send and receive TWAMP-Test packets. The Control-Client, acting on > behalf of the Session-Sender, proposes the Receiver port number from > the Dynamic Port range [RFC6335]: > "The Receiver Port is the desired UDP port to which TWAMP-Test > packets will be sent by the Session-Sender (the port where the > Session-Reflector is asked to receive test packets). The Receiver > Port > is also the UDP port from which TWAMP-Test packets will be sent by > the > Session-Reflector (the Session-Reflector will use the same UDP port > to > send and receive packets)." > > Minor issues: > > Does the following sentence mean the UDP port was already assigned to to > OWAMP > & TWAMP control? [acm] Yes, that's why the Abstract says *re-assignment*. > > “ Since OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control require TCP transport, they > cannot make use of the UDP ports which were originally assigned. > However, test sessions using OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test operate on UDP > transport.” > > The text then states that “Use of this UDP port is OPTIONAL in standards- > track > OWAMP and TWAMP. “ [acm] Exactly, the Dynamic range is still available, according to RFC5357. > If not using UDP ports, does it mean that the TCP ports are uses for > OWAMP-TEST > & TWAMP-TEST? [acm] No, never. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > the head note has “WAMP W-K UDP Ports” as the title which is different [acm] it says *WAMP, meaning either OWAMP or TWAMP. > from the > draft title. P.s. what does W-K mean? [acm] W-K == Well-Known
