Linda, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for clarifying Linda’s questions. I’ve entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Nov 26, 2018, at 4:54 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <a...@research.att.com> > wrote: > > Hi Linda, > thanks for your gen-art review, concise replies below, > Al > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 1:16 PM >> To: gen-art@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test....@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; >> i...@ietf.org >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > i...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
