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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 10 April 2020 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 471E53A0DBD; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wKiyFBbcIUET; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3CC3A0DBA; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB29B3897D; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:25:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D896E30; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <709d4f5a-69a7-463e-07f3-b11cc3a9e70b@joelhalpern.com>
References: <158648497631.26678.9121665060210659827@ietfa.amsl.com> <1280ef73-a21c-63d9-3de9-2c4f7e68e10a@gmail.com> <709d4f5a-69a7-463e-07f3-b11cc3a9e70b@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:27:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4750.1586554020@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/oMiS5SCwWobqY2P9EWuFHmyumbg>
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 21:27:12 -0000

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 =-