[6lo] Re: Gen-ART Early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-05

Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com> Tue, 07 May 2024 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <luigi.iannone@huawei.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 43AC2C14F6B7; Tue, 7 May 2024 01:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Z7o0Ivx9CJiq; Tue, 7 May 2024 01:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E932C14F601; Tue, 7 May 2024 01:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VYVyl2YHgz6JB3Z; Tue, 7 May 2024 15:58:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.78]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B191400CB; Tue, 7 May 2024 16:01:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) by lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 7 May 2024 09:01:35 +0100
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.191.160.78]) by lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.191.160.78]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Tue, 7 May 2024 09:01:35 +0100
From: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>
To: "carles.gomez@upc.edu" <carles.gomez@upc.edu>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-05
Thread-Index: AQHamong9GbkdUSygEe+rvgV5YRewbGAwe5QgAOVvwCAANa04IAFhkQAgACGrICAADisEA==
Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 08:01:34 +0000
Message-ID: <fe2cbb4cbbd844e993b599ee72664695@huawei.com>
References: <83cef4a3-9260-4b89-aa6a-c4352e0d010a@alum.mit.edu> <22f9041652ac46f98d4f38e41950d6e2@huawei.com> <8589407b-73f5-4d48-9cbb-4389a92a2aa7@alum.mit.edu> <5fbaff2f2f8643baa72c0f0ca9b5c00f@huawei.com> <587bd600-0453-4012-b89c-196f680076db@alum.mit.edu> <CAAUO2xzKEcHOc9UjcDH8fi5VWgPGt298ywZJqj4bOT2=JsCkFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUO2xzKEcHOc9UjcDH8fi5VWgPGt298ywZJqj4bOT2=JsCkFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.206.215.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fe2cbb4cbbd844e993b599ee72664695huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: DRHW26WTBRHJUYCXPKWV5YW4ZL3FPQNP
X-Message-ID-Hash: DRHW26WTBRHJUYCXPKWV5YW4ZL3FPQNP
X-MailFrom: luigi.iannone@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-6lo.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing.all@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [6lo] Re: Gen-ART Early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-05
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/njDeQmvtXorWeNDRdjYWj8hOL-A>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:6lo-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:6lo-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:6lo-leave@ietf.org>

Yes,

Thanks a lot Paul.
We will add text as discussed, making sure also your last concerns are addressed.
You will check at the next round 😉

Ciao

L.

From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carles.gomez@upc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2024 07:37
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing.all@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-05

Hi Paul,

Many thanks for your thoughtful review!

Cheers,

Shwetha and Carles
(6lo WG chairs)

On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 23:35, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu<mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
Hi Luigi,

Below I've edited out all the stuff that is settled and irrelevant to
remaining issues. Then I inserted my comments.

On 5/6/24 7:17 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote:

>>>> 2) ISSUE: Working of OT network domains
...
> [LI] You got it right. What about the following (re-using part of your wording):
>
> *  In an idealized PASA-based OT domain, a leaf-node could be a field
>      device (sensor or actuator) that always connects to PLC serving as
>      last node forwarding traffic to/from the leaves, i.e. sensors and
>      actuators. Hence, the PLC will work as a PASA Router only
>      for field devices supporting  IPv6. For field devices not supporting IPv6
>      the PLC will assign PASA addresses for each of them, and then translate
>      between IPv6 packets and the device protocol,  making the devices
>      appear as PASA Hosts within the enclosing PASA Domain.
>
> [LI] Clear enough?

Yes, good.

>>>> 4) ISSUE: Address Assignment

> [LI] May be we should add a sentence after the FCFS policy. Something like:
>
> "Some deployments may have tighter constrains on the router selection, but enforcing such selection is beyond the scope of this document."
>
> What do you think?

I don't know. This is outside my depth unless I study up on the other
documents in your WG. I looked briefly but it seemed like more than I
wanted to take on for this review.

By now I think you understand my concern. I leave it to you to decide if
this is covered adequately among all your documents.

>>>> 5) ISSUE: Root Node Address
...
> [LI] Now I see you point. The reason why the root address is always 1 is because of the question in issue 8.
> In this way it is very easy to unpad the address, just drop all the leading zeros.
> I think is worth to add text to better highlight the exception of why the root, while being a router, has the address 1.
> We will add a sentence.

Sounds good. Make it clear that the root node address MUST be "1".

>>>> 6) ISSUE: Tree Address Assignment Function
...
>> But it raises different questions in my mind:
>>
>> If all of these devices are stateful then there may be situations when a
>> device is reset and forgets all that state. This is fine if every device
>> in the domain is reset simultaneously. But if a subset of devices is
>> reset there will be problems:
>>
>> If a host is reset it will request a new address from its old router.
>> (Assuming it chooses the same router.) its old address becomes an
>> orphan. Or is the router supposed to recognize the host and send back
>> the old address?
>
> [LI] Good point. This must be covered in the GAAO document. The router needs to store address assignments in non-volatile memory.

IIUC you are saying that these issues are the responsibility of a
different document. I leave that for you to sort out.

>> If a router is reset, then it won't remember any of its children, but
>> they will still remember it and won't have any reason to reconnect.
>
> [LI] Not sure I understand you here. Children can still re-register their address since they remember.
> [LI]

I didn't see re-registering mentioned in this doc. Again I assume you
have that covered in other documents.

I think I am done now. I hope I've been more of a help than a pain.

The usual policies for genart review assignments will probably mean I'll
be back for a later review. See you then. :-)

        Thanks,
        Paul