Re: [6lo] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)
Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Tue, 28 February 2017 22:55 UTC
Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD8C1297AB; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.229, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x0n3lmSvQbBN; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCE912940E; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id i1so18241126ota.3; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=YAzQGkDBxPOIY61us0Qmhshj2r5geDKHK+hi6CJ51d8=; b=niE0aytnBh9FDHV4FUI9SbIm5uf6H0GhzdaAH1SfXuTh+9eEroBOFy1L1uptd1mkaX jVWW4rLq37bdNr5RiIQ0/iwvrd8PGP9hd0LAlw6AkD2RjXdJMuxMHLAuh1+yzWA5ru1u 2emQ1fiyKMDaudc37Ui5AG2chMwvse7L+0PH0orXIhspb0472FO11FPTTScWQyMyFIfF 9JDHexv2K6HECxvD9lvVmuqW+89Wtt9gJ8U86ELLHikgax5UwGcLACh7srzciROA5Z+M CcC0Hqe1SMLXhr1VOn2B7cKfbPSblKHLTfc6vkmnopyt1sCipHV/2id37JhEVC/g7MSF RLlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YAzQGkDBxPOIY61us0Qmhshj2r5geDKHK+hi6CJ51d8=; b=njiU2wuK1OK7F49oolAIWq1BLG6Hp4YWS7svl5kBfWdYrCBfyF5J/LPtDe+1SGjW0g VSe3v6hDnZyYFCofOw2pJAUMHW3PdZUJFaqTZ9sYI415PPaV5RQHxXxZxfZsw7O9dSRw 7zwr7txCpCuWoLCmw6823ouc3BPvdtXaTVSAZxazEbkyjmkquS8JHsOxWS3yCnpFmsWA EF8waKtDTipBHFfu4dj0dzrDGwDhDcG6V2MnbXOcMQgaQDhzIp6mD+RDrc/inqY9z7nn eMkxu9SOPXjGufBPGs/VLLST+0gb8NUGHX0QleGKPJrf1wJAJhKnbo6hIHQMtPOsDO1u fAIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mYfFOEprncrG149YzcEJ8mVPN6aRhLx1mVMnb/npMgfMH5WOuKLkCqWPJzrVG7TZKb2m5RDGQq/Ljpow==
X-Received: by 10.157.46.41 with SMTP id q38mr2236079otb.134.1488322556349; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com
Received: by 10.182.217.38 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148057866865.9634.910157038646776937.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148057866865.9634.910157038646776937.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:55:56 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -_k8XcjOaK9b-JTHyAQ5vpVGdck
Message-ID: <CABOxzu32TE9MJaSFdOzXyaQj3ghW8DAd0ZbwKahf-f_EmQ5rOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1139ab0c48569405499f1923"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/De7RS17Lem4TtaFOC04K4dcX_p4>
Cc: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac@ietf.org, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:55:59 -0000
Hi Joel, Thanks for your review. Comments inline... On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote: > Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: No Objection > > 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-6lo-6lobac/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> performed the opsdir > review > > it would probably be good to discuss these concerns before it gets out > the door. > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational > aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call > may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors > and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > Document reviewed: draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06 > > Summary: > > The abstract of the document says “This specification defines the > frame format for transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming > link-local and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP > networks. > This document is on a standards track. > > > Operational Considerations > > Operations. The document does talk about existence of legacy Master > Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP) along with nodes that will implement this new > MS/TP frame format. It says that if these legacy nodes are present, they > will ignore the frame format defined in this specification. It also says > that co-existence with legacy implementations is only a secondary goal. > To enable this, no changes are permitted to the MS/TP addressing modes, > frame header format, control frames, or Master Node state machine. > <kel> Section 1.4 has been reworked to promote the importance of co-existence (it allows MS/TP networks to be incrementally upgraded to IPv6). The constraints on making any changes to the L2 frame header are necessary to meet the co-existence goal. </kel> > From an operational perspective, everything that can be configured > can also be misconfigured. One way to simplify configuration, would be by > specifying reasonable defaults, including default modes and parameters. > Are there default parameters? If so, what are they? > <kel> I expanded Section 2 to include constants and configuration parameters (with default values for the latter) that are required for implementation. The mechanism for changing default values is outside the scope of this I-D. </kel> > It appears from the draft that the deployment scenario in > consideration is a green field opportunity. That only nodes that > implement the new MS/TP frame format will be able to communicate with > each other. So there is no consideration outlined for a migration path. > In other words, even though co-existence with legacy implementations is > one of the goals, it is not clear how that will enable a migration from > that implementation to the new format. > <kel> This is similar to the way Ethernet and 802.3 frames co-exist on the same media without interoperation. Prior to this work (and I include [Addendum_an]), MS/TP could only be used by the BACnet network layer. As BACnet eventually migrates to IPv6 as the transport, it may be that a mix of old and new BACnet MS/TP devices exist on the same link, in which case they will have to communicate with each other through a router or application layer gateway. But I think this discussion is well outside the scope of the I-D. What 6LoBAC enables is a true green field opportunity; for constrained IPv6 devices running arbitrary applications to use a wired datalink that can reliably cover distances up to 1Km at relatively low cost. </kel> > It is also not clear on what the impact if any this new format may > have on existing legacy implementations. For example, for multicast > frames, it states that multicast is not supported in MS/TP. That all > multicast frames are broadcasted at the MAC layer and filtered at the > IPv6 layer. What impact could this have on the nodes that have to process > these multicast packets that are broadcasted to all the nodes? > <kel> As stated in Section 1, "If present on the link, legacy MS/TP implementations (including any slave nodes) will ignore the frame format defined in this specification." This is handled by the MS/TP Receive Frame state machine, which includes a SKIP_DATA state. </kel> How is the node with the new MS/TP frame format expected to verified > for correct operation? Is it by actively monitoring the node, and if so > what are the elements that can be verified for correct operation. Are > there events generated as part of protocol operations that can be used to > verify its operation? > > <kel> My understanding is that management of 6lo hosts is being considered by another WG. Definition of a MIB, etc. is outside the scope of this I-D. I think this applies to most of the questions below... </kel> > > Management Considerations: > > Will the nodes with this new MS/TP frame format need to be > configured, or monitored? What are some of the management operations that > are needed? How are these operations performed, e.g. locally, remotely > etc. Where is this management interface defined? > Are there any new faults or health indicators associated with this > new frame formats? How are the alarms and events exposed? Will they be > pushed or do the devices have to be polled? > Similarly, if one of the nodes in the network is not behaving > correctly, how would an operator be able to determine which node it is? > <kel> [BACnet] Clause 9 defines Test_Request and Test_Response frame types, which can be used for local loopback tests at L2. </kel> > Are there counters maintained by each node that can be monitored to see > what each node is doing? Anything that can be used to do a root cause > analysis, and or fault isolation is helpful. > Are there any performance considerations that an operator should be > aware of with this new frame format? > Certain properties of this new frame format can be useful to monitor. > For example, the number of packets received with the frame format or the > number of packets sent. Are there particular counters that can be used > for monitoring? > > > Accounting Considerations > > Is it appropriate to collect usage information related to this new > frame format? If so, what usage information would be appropriate to > collect? > > > A run of idnits reveals one misc. warning that might be worth looking > at. > > Miscellaneous warnings: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------- > > -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code > sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' > and > '<CODE ENDS>' lines. > > Done. Thanks again, Kerry > Thanks. > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanandani@gmail.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > OPS-DIR@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir > > >
- [6lo] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-6… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [6lo] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ie… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [6lo] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ie… joel jaeggli