Well-Known Port Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-04
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) Yes
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes
Thanks for producing this document. A draft that's useful AND cleans up a dangling port assignment is a good thing!
This text
This memo recognizes the value of assigning a well-known UDP port to
the *-Test protocols, and that this goal can easily be arranged
through port re-assignments.
is slightly odd ("memos recognize things now?"). Perhaps something like
Assigning a well-known UDP port to the *-Test protocols provides
value, and can easily be arranged through port re-assignments.
might be clearer.
Do the right thing, of course.
This text
TWAMP Light is an idea described in Informative Appendix I of
[RFC5357], and includes an un-specified control protocol (possibly
communicating through non-standard means) combined with the TWAMP-
Test protocol.
confused me - I'm not sure what "(possibly communicating through non-standard means)" adds to "an un-specified control protocol", which already tells me I have no idea what the control protocol is doing. Is this something I need to understand?
I wasn't quite sure what
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work.
means - is it simply that synthetic traffic doesn't reveal sensitive information?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03#appendix-A was interesting to me (it significantly predates my connection to IPPM), but I wonder if anyone who needs to read this explanation will find it in this document. Do the right thing, of course.
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection
Please expand "OWAMP" and "TWAMP" in the title, abstract, and upon first use in the body.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
In Section 4, 'Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of "consist" is "composed or made up of"' seems like an odd justification for a normative requirement for conformance with RFC 4656 and RFC 5357. It seems like it would be clearer (and maybe more accurate) to say, "For avoidance of doubt, implementation of both ... are REQUIRED ...."
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 6 Is there also a risk of a network under test giving preferential treatment to flows involving the well-known port and thus biasing the data?
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection