Subject: [ippm] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 20:04:05 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:48:33 +0000

Thanks for your Yes & comments, Spencer.
We'll do the right thing, and appreciate your encouragement.

I'll revert back to this with a more detailed reply.
regards from Geneva,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:04 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
...
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dport-2Dtwamp-2Dtest-2D03-
> 23appendix-2DA&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=hL5rppI9szpPrUCaVZfX-
> Avjb9w2Ve9wnPhfW2eHGzw&s=e5ElSbf6IXRk3zDKVw0BtQ8LO4oAqh-xB4gx-54ZpT0&e=
> was

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 18:23:07 +0000

Hi Spencer,
replies below,
Al

...
[acm] 
For me, a good alternative was:

	In this memo, IETF 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.

> have no idea what the control protocol is doing. Is this something I need
[acm] 

I agree, I was attempting to draw attention to the possibility that 
the role of the control protocol could be fulfilled by either a 
non-TWAMP standard protocol or a proprietary protocol, but let's just
delete the phrase in parens and leave it at that.

> means - is it simply that synthetic traffic doesn't reveal sensitive
[acm] 
In the LMAP Framework reference, we included user IP addrs in the 
list of sensitive personal info (SPI), but that's the end of it for active.
The rest of an active test packet has a transport header and 
a test packet format (TWAMP-Test) that reveals measurement info, 
but not additional SPI.

Passive measurements would be based on the user's traffic
which may expose SPI if not encrypted, and also exposes the user IP addrs
if the user wants a response. 

So, a passive measurement by the user or third party on the user's traffic
could expose more SPI than an active measurement stream, but no less.
For example, user traffic exposes a potentially interesting destination address,
while an active measurement stream is headed for a measurement server
(and if we looked at the packets we'd know that before looking-up the IP).

I didn't go into what someone can infer from observing user traffic in 
contrast to a user's stream intended for measurement, active or passive.
I'm sure we discussed that aspect in the LMAP Framework, too.

> document. Do the right thing, of course.

[acm] I think I'm mostly citing stuff we included in the LMAP Framework above.

If after looking there you think more is needed, let's discuss who and how.

regards,
Al

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 17:29:14 +0000

Hi Spencer,
The revised text is now available
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test/

thanks again for your comments,
Al

> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 1:23 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>; The IESG
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Tianran Zhou
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> replies below,
> Al
> 
> > 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?
> [acm]
>