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

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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 ...."

>As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
>Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed Standard.

>Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

It asks for the re-assignment of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols.

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?

Yes.   

>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
>Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
>examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
>documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
>Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

It explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of
well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and
measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these
standards track protocol names for the industry..
 
>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

There was reasonable discussions in the mailing list based on the search of the draft title.
A couple of people supported the adoption of this document.
There was no objection in the mailing list when the WG chair raised the LC.

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is a simple idea. I did not see implementation on this.
 
>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Tianran Zhou

>
>  Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Mirja Kühlewind will normally serve as Responsible AD.

>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>the IESG.

I had some commnets on the 01 version and sent to the mailing list. They were kindly solved.
Based on the 03 version, I think it's ready for publication.

>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
>broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
>DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
>took place.

Nothing beyond the normal checks.

>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
>has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
>IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
>with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
>is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
>has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>concerns here.

None.

>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.


>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

No. 

>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
>being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Yes. There was reasonable discussions related to this draft. This idea is simple, so easy for people to get consensus.
The process is smoth.

>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

There are some ID nits exist in the 03 version.
"Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--)."

But some of them are not acurate  by the tool.

  -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5357, but
    the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.
no this problem.

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 292, but not defined
no this problem.

-- Duplicate reference: RFC5357, mentioned in 'TimDISCUSS', was also
    mentioned in 'RFC5357'.
These are different references. One is the RFC, the other is the discussion history.

>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?

Yes.

>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
>references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are RFCs.

>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
>the Last Call procedure.

Yes, the normative reference to RFC7594 is a downref due to being informational.

>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

It will update RFC4656 and 5357 if approved.

>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA request is like this:
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | Service    | Port  | Transp. | Description          | Reference  |
  | Name      | Num.  | Protocol|                      |            |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | owamp-    | 861  | tcp    | OWAMP-Control        | [RFC4656]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | owamp-test | 861  | udp    | OWAMP-Test          | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-    | 862  | tcp    | TWAMP-Control        | [RFC5357]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-test | 862  | udp    | TWAMP-Test Receiver  | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        | Port                |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+

>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.

>As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
>Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed Standard.

>Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

It asks for the re-assignment of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols.

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?

Yes.   

>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
>Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
>examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
>documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
>Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

It explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of
well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and
measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these
standards track protocol names for the industry..
 
>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

There was reasonable discussions in the mailing list based on the search of the draft title.
A couple of people supported the adoption of this document.
There was no objection in the mailing list when the WG chair raised the LC.

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is a simple idea. I did not see implementation on this.
 
>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Tianran Zhou

>
>  Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Mirja Kühlewind will normally serve as Responsible AD.

>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>the IESG.

The document shepherd think the current version (-01) is almost ready except for some small issues.
1. Section 4,
"Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of
"consist" is "composed or made up of","
I do not think these words are necessary.

2. Section 4, about the "TWAMP Light", you describes the discussions from Lars and Tim. I am not sure if it's necessary to introduce the discussions. Or just describe what is the "TWAMP Light" and the result.

3. Section 4, "Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes...."
This paragraph seems to introduce why an well know udp port is necessary. I am not sure if this should be appeared in this "definition" section.

4. Section 5, "It may simplify some operations to have a wellknown
port available for the Test protocols, or for future
specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default
port."

This is the reason for a well-known port for the test session. I think this is should be more clear and reasonably. But here seem vague.

>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
>broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
>DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
>took place.

Nothing beyond the normal checks.

>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
>has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
>IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
>with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
>is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
>has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>concerns here.

None.

>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.


>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

No. 

>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
>being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Yes. There was reasonable discussions related to this draft. This idea is simple, so easy for people to get consensus.
The process is smoth.

>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

There are some ID nits exist.
"Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--)."

>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?

Yes.

>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
>references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are RFCs.

>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
>the Last Call procedure.

Yes, the normative reference to RFC7594 is a downref due to being informational.

>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

It will update RFC4656 and 5357 if approved.

>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA request is like this:
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | Service    | Port  | Transp. | Description          | Reference  |
  | Name      | Num.  | Protocol|                      |            |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | owamp-    | 861  | tcp    | OWAMP-Control        | [RFC4656]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | owamp-test | 861  | udp    | OWAMP-Test          | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-    | 862  | tcp    | TWAMP-Control        | [RFC5357]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-test | 862  | udp    | TWAMP-Test Receiver  | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        | Port                |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+

>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there are two actions to complete.

IANA Question: Should the description for port 862 TCP be changed from "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Control" to "TWAMP-Control"?

First, in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

the registration of the UDP well-known port 861 will be updated as follows:

OLD:

Service Name: owamp-control
Port Number: 861
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: OWAMP-Control
Assignee:
Contact:
Reference: [RFC4656]

NEW:

Service Name: owamp-test
Port Number: 861
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: OWAMP-Test
Assignee: IESG
Contact: IETF Chair
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, also in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

the registration of the UDP well-known port 862 will be updated as follows:

OLD:

Service Name: twamp-control
Port Number: 862
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Control
Assignee:
Contact:
Reference: [RFC5357]

NEW:

Service Name: twamp-test
Port Number: 862
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: TWAMP-Test Receiver Port
Assignee: IESG
Contact: IETF Chair
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We are notifying the port experts group about this document for any additional review they would like to provide.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net, Tianran Zhou , zhoutianran@huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port Assignments) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port
Assignments'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-11-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of
  well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and
  measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these
  standards track protocol names for the industry.

  The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well-
  known port assignments, and clarifies the complete OWAMP and TWAMP
  protocol composition for the industry.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7594: A Framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) (Informational - IETF stream)

>As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
>Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed Standard.

>Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

It asks for the re-assignment of well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols.

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?

Yes.   

>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
>Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
>examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
>documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
>Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

It explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of
well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and
measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these
standards track protocol names for the industry..
 
>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

There was reasonable discussions in the mailing list based on the search of the draft title.
A couple of people supported the adoption of this document.
There was no objection in the mailing list when the WG chair raised the LC.

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

This is a simple idea. I did not see implementation on this.
 
>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Tianran Zhou

>
>  Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Mirja Kühlewind will normally serve as Responsible AD.

>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>the IESG.

The document shepherd think the current version (-01) is almost ready except for some small issues.
1. Section 4,
"Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of
"consist" is "composed or made up of","
I do not think these words are necessary.

2. Section 4, about the "TWAMP Light", you describes the discussions from Lars and Tim. I am not sure if it's necessary to introduce the discussions. Or just describe what is the "TWAMP Light" and the result.

3. Section 4, "Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes...."
This paragraph seems to introduce why an well know udp port is necessary. I am not sure if this should be appeared in this "definition" section.

4. Section 5, "It may simplify some operations to have a wellknown
port available for the Test protocols, or for future
specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default
port."

This is the reason for a well-known port for the test session. I think this is should be more clear and reasonably. But here seem vague.

>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
>broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
>DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
>took place.

Nothing beyond the normal checks.

>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
>has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
>IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
>with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
>is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
>has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>concerns here.

None.

>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.


>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

No. 

>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
>being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Yes. There was reasonable discussions related to this draft. This idea is simple, so easy for people to get consensus.
The process is smoth.

>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

There are some ID nits exist.
"Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--)."

>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?

Yes.

>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
>references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are RFCs.

>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
>the Last Call procedure.

No.

>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

It will update RFC4656 and 5357 if approved.

>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA request is like this:
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | Service    | Port  | Transp. | Description          | Reference  |
  | Name      | Num.  | Protocol|                      |            |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
  | owamp-    | 861  | tcp    | OWAMP-Control        | [RFC4656]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | owamp-test | 861  | udp    | OWAMP-Test          | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-    | 862  | tcp    | TWAMP-Control        | [RFC5357]  |
  | control    |      |        |                      |            |
  | twamp-test | 862  | udp    | TWAMP-Test Receiver  | [RFCXXXX]  |
  |            |      |        | Port                |            |
  +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+

>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.