Re: [Anima] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-24

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 10 April 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805893A10B1; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 vgb6BeXJIlK3; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 1476A3A10AB; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id x3so1378270pfp.7; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PT3pGQJvlhqEk/KexV+JKgj68mW1V6s2Iv94UjG5EKM=; b=rKPJ4/dSjCNdk3Oz+ichFUEw4cVvaEgsz6cfkrczNiHITCna3mjVGJ2ef0J4bRDnpx EJWMI6tS6AqgDCMK0JerLIOOMG1LURW4lPlLTE8r5lxWThF8cY0voZJhvD03RJTpoPUg 3YUfmtIAd4SjmSL1ZjtGVDCoYkbOuvbSbCJDPhjJZDrAa69wXvY9Cnw7LuBBddOIWrpI o/keBXN1AJxy4zOdFdUyXAE6inbvi7VD3z0yMf02wilooduxUfVabUaEufVzJdMagbBr nliLgm4G6k5RxR4tORxQduWtRK/U/Ew3d/lEVU60btvInx4VPdjDAbavBUoNiEo7ZAPu 1uEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PT3pGQJvlhqEk/KexV+JKgj68mW1V6s2Iv94UjG5EKM=; b=WOrldln97UJKB50MKJALyNNnBI8jqtVN9IrDpPjMS7ciHBuQCPraAcqDGVuz0PQtkK iYZWHkadeAQa7AceZB9xssVzxl69/eU34NfNoWuohxksBKVqnAMm9uo4kmXrVbVeVzc/ m9f2/TWofgKsHiwdcPF5SgsAmqRDIo8XpvA2E8+wLosPVv6yakfTuqtSA+p3eCkKTYbY 6Z6f3NIl6HK/N82vo8e0gxTcI5eXs6bh6TDYtHRYoxcjakUhThQ5bTHhSTKOOd3D/zTk TjY7I/egd0FdSU2I8vKUptwahZAnr+clUYqF/YmeLwmqRo3OZN1TlOmMYvC9sQD643Mw PuFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYeqOam2oXkgJX3Nc8jywNoP4eaYCjx8nO9jMRVcovdX7kUsuiq plEO2L1xvU8BZPOgWMP6h/1OkJoj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIc1ijovYQ6Wh1QhV22G+P1TeWMFKInOsJDr8G9ANObUo6Gc0GEM+R/sLPmcyvs5U9NLS0iRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9104:: with SMTP id 4mr7374303pfh.168.1586559806335; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.25.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mm18sm2679554pjb.39.2020.04.10.16.03.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.all@ietf.org
References: <158648497631.26678.9121665060210659827@ietfa.amsl.com> <1280ef73-a21c-63d9-3de9-2c4f7e68e10a@gmail.com> <709d4f5a-69a7-463e-07f3-b11cc3a9e70b@joelhalpern.com> <4750.1586554020@localhost> <4908ff49-6db8-955b-faf3-26c840abefc6@joelhalpern.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9b359742-a3ae-351f-9c4e-48f66628f321@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:03:20 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4908ff49-6db8-955b-faf3-26c840abefc6@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/DIDbWoVQ2oLzbzk0fvhxXNGZJCU>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-24
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 23:03:29 -0000

On 11-Apr-20 09:35, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am happy to propose some starting text (I am sure it will need further 
> tuning) as a short definition of a Loopback Interface:
>      Loopback Interface: A logical or virtual representation of
>      connectivity for IP communication.  It is distinct from any
>      physical interface on the device.  It is typically used to
>      abstract a point of communication from any physical connectivity.

That would work for me.
 
> If we want to elaborate, we could not that this provides an interface to 
> anchor IPv6 addresses in accordance with the IPv6 addressing architecture.

Right. That's the only thing that's different from the IPv4 case.

   Brian
 
> As for the L2 material, if the WG wants to remove it, I would be fine 
> with that.  It is clearly supplementary.  I am just trying to avoid 
> confusion if we choose to describe it.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> 
> On 4/10/2020 5:27 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>      > On Loopback, I understand your frustration with the lack of a good
>>      > definition.  Given that IPv6 addressing architecture constraints, you need
>>      > some sort of interface.  In practice, the way loopbacks are used seems to
>>      > match the need.  So I do not object to the usage.  just to the definition.
>>      > It would also be acceptable to simply craft a different term and clearly
>>      > define it if the usage is sufficiently different from existing
>>      > practice.
>>
>> Reading this thread, I was hoping you might be able to help us with a better
>> definition then :-)
>>
>> We are doing exactly what OSPF and BGP does operationally on every platform
>> that I have every worked on.  We are just doing it with RPL.
>>
>> To me, it's *SO* obvious that it goes without saying, so now we are asked to
>> say it, and we get into trouble because nobody before us bothered to say it.
>>
>>      > On the final minor comment, it was specifically about the section on L2
>>      > devices.  Maybe something special is needed for the special case of a shared
>>      > network that is also a border network.  But that seems very rare. And getting
>>      > the L2 switch to do the right packet forwarding for the hybrid case seems an
>>      > invitation to trouble.
>>
>> I'm not happy about any of the L2 text; I would have left it out completely.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>