RFC 5357, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", October 2008

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5618, RFC 5938, RFC 6038, RFC 7717, RFC 7750, RFC 8545

Errata ID: 1587
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-11-05
Verifier Name: Lars Eggert
Date Verified: 2009-05-14

Section 3.5, pg.10 says:

<< last paragraph of 3.5 >>

   When the requested Receiver Port is not available (e.g., port in
   use), the Server at the Session-Reflector MAY suggest an alternate
   and available port for this session in the Port field.  The Session-
   Sender either accepts the alternate port, or composes a new Session-
|  Request message with suitable parameters.  Otherwise, the Server at
   vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv                                    !!!!!!!!!!^^^
|  the Control-Client uses the Accept field to convey other forms of
|  session rejection or failure and MUST NOT suggest an alternate port;
                               ^
   in this case, the Port field MUST be set to zero.

It should say:

   When the requested Receiver Port is not available (e.g., port in
   use), the Server at the Session-Reflector MAY suggest an alternate
   and available port for this session in the Port field.  The Session-
   Sender either accepts the alternate port, or composes a new Session-
|  Request message with suitable parameters.  Otherwise, the Server uses
                                                                   ^
|  the Accept field to convey other forms of session rejection or
|  failure to the Control-Client and MUST NOT suggest an alternate port;
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   in this case, the Port field MUST be set to zero.

Notes:

The original description does not match the architectural model depicted
in the figure in Section 1.2 (page 4), where the Server and the
Control-Client are distinct entities, and the TWAMP-Control messages
flow between these parties.

The proposed corrected text aims to clarify the roles.

Report New Errata