Subject: [ippm] Some nits for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 23:11:11 -0500

Here are a couple of nits in draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03:

1. The essence of the I-D is in section 5:

   This memo requests re-assignment of the UDP well-known port from the
   Control protocol to the Test protocol (see the IANA Considerations
   Section 7).

Despite the simplicity of this, I didn't understand that was what the
I-D did after reading either the Abstract or the Introduction (section
1).  Perhaps using this sentence in both places would clarify the
situation:

   This memo requests re-assignment of the UDP well-known ports from the
   Control protocols of OWAMP and TWAMP to the corresponding Test
   protocols.

2. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 contain the following odd uses of "Section 7":

   A Control Client that supports use of the allocated TWAMP-Test
   Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that port number in the
   Request-TW-Session Command.

   As described above, an OWAMP Control Client that supports use of the
   allocated OWAMP-Test Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that
   port number in the Request-Session Command.

Dale

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:40:14 +0000

Hi Dale,
you're absolutely right.  these are nits.

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,
If the definition of "re-assignment" is clear, then the sentence is fully 
functional. The sentence mentions the motivation and other details because 
some people were saying that TWAMP-Control was OPTIONAL last year
(it's not). The sentence summarizes the entire memo, as we tend to 
do in an abstract - it's not only about re-assignment.

The Scope section is really clear, and it's only 3 paragraphs from the beginning:
3.  Scope

   The scope of this memo is to re-allocate well-known ports for the UDP
   Test protocols that compose necessary parts of their respective
   standards track protocols, OWAMP and TWAMP, along with clarifications
   of the complete protocol composition for the industry.

We seem to be missing some parens around "Section 7", 
thanks for pointing that out.

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ippm] Some nits for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1uSWVJOd4Kjn2r0iKMW1iRFM4v3a0
> hRAbUoOxQsG7qs&s=6Zq0OFWI5YPg2lutPrNnNtxj6Upvbq403eFdO0rlIhg&e=

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:44:04 -0500

>    of the complete protocol composition for the industry.

Yes ... but although it "describes the re-assignment of well-known
ports", it doesn't say *what* re-assignment is done.  I had assumed that
the re-assignment was some complex thing, because the details weren't
"in line".  But in reality, the specifics can be described by adding
just a few words to the sentence that describes the generalities.

Dale

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:41:35 +0000

> From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:44 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Some nits for draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03
> 
[acm] 
At present, each part of the Scope is described at an equal level of detail.
The most important part of this memo for me is the clarification of 
the complete protocol composition; IPPM working group exchanged many more
spirited e-mail messages on that aspect, than on the port re-assignment.

Al

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:49:08 +0000

Re-sending - the last five live were truncated in the message I 
received back from the ippm list...

[acm] 

Al