Subject: Re: [ippm] RE: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-05.txt

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:50:30 -0500

Hi Steve,

see below for a few minor push-backs,

Al and Kaynam

At 07:41 PM 11/19/2007, Konish Jr., Stephen wrote:
>1) Abstract: Does it make sense to spell out ippm?
>
>2) Introduction: Question: with regards to:
>"...making it an attactive alternative in some circumstances."
>Alternative to what exactly?
>More than two hosts?

to OWAMP

>
>3) Section 1.2: Does it make sense to add a sentence that
>explains what the session-reflector does?  You only say what it doesn't
>do.

The first bullet item describes this:
-  The Session Receiver is called the Session Reflector in the TWAMP
architecture.  The Session-Reflector has the capability to create and send a
measurement packet when it receives a measurement packet.  Unlike the Session
Receiver, the Session Reflector does not collect any packet information.

Is this sufficient?

>4) I realize we try not to duplicate any verbage in related RFCs, but I
>would love to see a couple lines in the introduction section saying that
>TWAMP consists of two protocols, and explains in one or two lines what
>their purpose is exactly.

Added that info

>5) Silly comment: Expiration Dates throughout the headers do not match
>the cover page.

Thanks, easy to miss

>6) Section 3.5 - Does the server being contacted with an unknown
>command,
>and always responding create a security risk?

We think not.  This is a response inside a TCP connection that
has been accepted.  We changed the MUST to SHOULD.

>
>7) Section 3.5:  Can we modify the following sentence from:
>
>"Both Conf-Sender and Conf-Receiver Must be set to 0 since the..."
>
>To:
>
>"Both the Conf-Sender field and Conf-Receiver field Must be set to 0
>since the..."

OK

>
>8) Can we spell out "SID" in section 3.5?
>
>9) Can we spell out MBZ and HMAC in section 3.5?

Done and Done

>10) In section 4.1, it mentions that the session sender configuration
>isn't defined in this standard.  Is it defined anywhere?

No, these protocols are not defined in OWAMP, either.
Our scope is just the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-test protocols.

>
>11)  Silly comment: Section 5.4 - Please change
>      "TWAMP-Contr ol" to "TWAMP-Control"
Can't find this in our copies...

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm