Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10 (really, this time)
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Thu, 15 December 2022 02:03 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25566C14CE29; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 18:03:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBX3xsFoy9NC; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 18:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9FBCC14CE25; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 18:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4NXbB0026Nz8R048; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:03:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 2BF23WeA057073; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:03:32 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:03:33 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:03:33 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa639a8075fffffffffedf382e
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202212151003333459487@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFjMia10MdvHoH1HnNt9uQmePtrK7sw0mEYZTN+OrQf1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAF4+nEFEKxs0_0THCH-2u4HGT5Kd_xpJuDrkOeMbb7b53ToSYA@mail.gmail.com, 202212141748530573668@zte.com.cn, CAF4+nEFjMia10MdvHoH1HnNt9uQmePtrK7sw0mEYZTN+OrQf1A@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 2BF23WeA057073
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 639A8077.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1671069816/4NXbB0026Nz8R048/639A8077.000/10.5.228.133/[10.5.228.133]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 639A8077.000/4NXbB0026Nz8R048
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/uMEDdrB6NyGMYyncd34z-m3iipI>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10 (really, this time)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:03:47 -0000
Hi Donald, Thank you for the reply. Please see inline... Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: DonaldEastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org <rtg-ads@ietf.org>;rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>; Date: 2022年12月15日 05:00 Subject: Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10 (really, this time) Thanks for your quick response. See below at <de>. On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:49 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: Hi Donald, Thank you for the review and thoughtful comments. I'll attempt to address your comments, although the relevant document is already in RFC Editor's Queue. <de> You're welcome. For some reason I was asked to review your draft after it was in the RFC Editor's Queue so I'm not sure what will happen to comment resolutions. [XM-2]>>> I see. Please see inline my responses... Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: DonaldEastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: <rtg-ads@ietf.org> <rtg-ads@ietf.org>; Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>; Date: 2022年12月14日 02:50 Subject: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10 (really, this time) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10 Reviewer: Donald Eastlake 3rd Review Date: 13 December 2022 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This document is reasonably well written but has some minor issues and occasionally scattered grammatical slips. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: Section 3.1: Concerning the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs, it states that Namespace-ID 0x000 MUST be first, any other occurrences of 0x000 MUST be disregarded. This naturally leads me to the following: If there are multiple occurrences of other Namespace-IDs, are all but the first ignored? [XM]>>> As stated in section 6, duplicate IOAM Namespace-IDs is an error. Is there any ordering requirement on any Namespace-IDs after the 0x0000 and, if so, how are out-of-order Namespace IDs handled? [XM]>>> No. <de> OK. If it is convenient to modify the document, I think it would be good to mention earlier in the document, where Namespace-IDs are first mentioned, that duplicates are an error and that, except for the requirement that 0x0000 be first, the Namespace-IDs can be in any order. [XM-2]>>> OK. Do the changes as below satisfy you? OLD A list of IOAM Namespace-IDs (one or more Namespace-IDs) MUST be included in this container in the echo request, and if present, the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 MUST be placed at the beginning of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs. The IOAM encapsulating node requests only the enabled IOAM capabilities that match one of the Namespace-IDs. NEW A list of IOAM Namespace-IDs (one or more Namespace-IDs) MUST be included in this container in the echo request, and if present, the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 MUST be placed at the beginning of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs, except which the Namespace-IDs can be in any order. The IOAM encapsulating node requests only the enabled IOAM capabilities that match one of the Namespace-IDs. Any duplicates of Namespace-ID are an error and MUST be ignored by the receiving node. Section 4: There is some unstated assumption here that IOAM capability information is wanted for a specific known unicast path. I think this assumption should be made explicit. [XM]>>> For IPv6, IOAM Capabilities Query would be sent to the known IOAM transit/decap nodes. For MPLS, IOAM Capabilities Query would be sent to the egress node and intercepted by the transit node through TTL expiration. <de> I was primarily wondering about multicast. [XM-2]>>> It seems to me nothing prevents this mechanism to be used for multicast. Considering RFC 9197 doesn't mention unicast or multicast, I prefer to remain the current text as is. SoP / TSF: - Either these need to be spelled out in the registry names for the registries being created in Section 5 or each registry with such an abbreviation in its registry name needs a note that includes the abbreviation expansion. [XM]>>> In section 5.1, it says "SoP: size of POT"; In section 5.2, it says "TSF: timestamp format". Do you see a need for some new text? <de> I think that text just in this draft is not sufficient. Someone looking at the Registries on the IANA web pages needs a bit more explanation. Of course, I suppose the RFC this draft is published as will be listed as a Reference from the IANA Registries which helps a lot. And maybe IANA will spontaneously put a little of this text into a Note at the beginning of each registry... [XM-2]>>> I checked IOAM registries (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam), there is no such a note. Considering the current text was produced during the IESG review, I prefer to remain it as is. - Suggest adding these to Section 2.2 Abbreviations. [XM]>>> OK. Section 6, Page 16: - There are two paragraphs in Section 6 where the first talks about IOAM Capability information being carried across the network and the second talks about collected IOAM Capability information. The first paragraph reasonably gives example security methods for data in transit. The second paragraph, however, does not mention or give an example of how to protect collected information, which is presumably data at rest. As it is, the paragraphs are mostly redundant except for the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Suggest changing the 2nd paragraph by replacing the existing material after the first sentence with something like "Care should therefore be taken to limit access to such collected IOAM Capabilities information." - In the next to the last paragraph of Section 6, we first learn that duplicate IAOM Namespace-IDs is an error. This should be mentioned earlier where Namespace-IDs in messages is first discussed. This paragraph also lists "whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-assigned one" as if that was an error condition, which I don't understand. [XM]>>> At this point, I prefer not to change section 6 in any way. As to the text "whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-assigned one", it's from RFC 9197 which says " The Namespace-ID value is divided into two subranges: an operator-assigned range from 0x0001 to 0x7FFF and an IANA-assigned range from 0x8000 to 0xFFFF. <de> Yes, I understand there are two ranges of IDs but they are mentioned here in the Security Considerations section in a paragraph about checking that "the fields in received echo requests and replies strictly conform to the specifications". I wasn't sure what being operator-assigned or IANA-assigned had to do with strictly conforming to the specifications. [XM-2]>>> This document reuses the Namespace-ID defined in RFC 9197. The idea is that the receiving node may know all the operator-assigned and IANA-assigned Namespace-IDs, at this time if a Namespace-ID outside which is received then it's seen as an error. Does that make sense? <de> Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Nits: Section 1, page 3: OLD Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node, the scalability can be an issue. NEW Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish a NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node, so scalability can be an issue. Section 1, Page 4/5: OLD Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM packets, echo request is among them, in this document that means echo request is required to traverse a path of IOAM data packet. This requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying same explicit path or ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packet. Specific to apply same ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packet, one possible way is to populate the same value(s) of ECMP affecting field(s) in the echo request. NEW Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM packets including echo request. In this document that means echo request is required to traverse the path of an IOAM data packet. This requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying the same explicit path or ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packets. Specifically, the same ECMP processing can be applied to both echo request and IOAM data packets, by populating the same value(s) in ECMP affecting field(s) of the packets. Section 3.2, Page 7: "reply except the" -> "reply unless the" Section 3.2.6, Page 13: OLD it's RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object. NEW including only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object is RECOMMENDED. Multiple sections: It is just a tiny bit confusing that many fields that are to be sent as zero and ignored on receipt are labeled with the ordinary capitalized word "Reserved". Suggest that you consider using "MBZ" or "RES" or even "RESERVED" so you don't end up duplicating the word when you say "Reserved field is reserved ..." In Section 3.2.6, however, there is a "Must Be Zero" field and, although all the fields are explained in other cases, there is no explanation below for that field. [XM]>>> Thank you for catching the Nits. Will work with RFC Editor to address them. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com
- [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ippm-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ip… xiao.min2
- Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ip… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [ippm] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-ip… xiao.min2