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

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2018-12-05 for -03)
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.

Mirja K├╝hlewind Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2018-12-04 for -03)
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 No Objection

Comment (2018-12-06 for -03)
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?

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2018-11-29 for -03)
Please expand "OWAMP" and "TWAMP" in the title, abstract, and upon first use in
the body.

Martin Vigoureux No Objection