Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

"Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hshah@ciena.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38051297F1; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:50:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cienacorp.onmicrosoft.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 xFAMRvvZ9P2c; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0071.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B97911297F0; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:50:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cienacorp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ciena-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=ySaFx1RK8jM4omcciq5xHFCOXNUjzUlsuEd6o12Tyfo=; b=ivIEjjtbWx0pYSPDxKTriXExmoBM39Gt+KQgwPqgw9b+OcBuAu/pcBCmcJIGkC7rc4LoOStYDpHOJ2KEnNP8lrKJ4EFRGPcwFNjO7QEfHB8BUNU2ZZpsViEZcQnuRHUwWuHCtLrCWx/NDghJXmopStWpyyh6RzIBx8jmS1aCEUs=
Received: from DM5PR04MB0234.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.168.234.135) by DM5PR04MB0235.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.168.234.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.919.13; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:50:22 +0000
Received: from DM5PR04MB0234.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.234.135]) by DM5PR04MB0234.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.234.135]) with mapi id 15.01.0919.018; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:50:22 +0000
From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>
To: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07
Thread-Index: AQHSjHfNeHDnPiSdYEOjkNnPB7FdAaFzixaAgADFrQCAAKoFaw==
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:50:22 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR04MB02343AD09F60F7105715D6B9AF500@DM5PR04MB0234.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <E3DC567C-B8E8-4292-8424-FCE479B5714B@cisco.com> <8B8A0EBB-D0CF-4ABB-B9C5-51017A2A9962@ciena.com>, <7B1517ED-B5C7-451A-9D97-52CDBBE2D205@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7B1517ED-B5C7-451A-9D97-52CDBBE2D205@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=hshah@ciena.com;
x-originating-ip: [25.172.33.4]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 48c4495a-ca83-4b6e-3a9b-08d45b215d9e
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:DM5PR04MB0235;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR04MB0235; 7:w5dDH9xadf9cX8T/UD5N11mx7n2w0pQ7P4D46ncNKQEfefpr6yIsg+51A9qUEymCLeHLDDSnbGHyA/qsbuKT41h2U8ghkrmyWo5+W+eoMksU34y2//BuGB9dbZ5Y9aMqRFkbdG0APhZZJndpBK5ZpiTNDUU9pb1PjKpDIHUnpDdxfN43FJ0iatsaKxAmK0sDxgOYwM2Qk3bw7v+QwTylEWsBuh3vsQOyooKSES34FTVVy5ajuAS4HSOBOPqzQtzMhmLmopYXP1Sf3TI/lVP86SMrhkrMP08+gJO2bHXgOUJzrsZQ0dnKIV1rbb7CPXK0yEsF7lB8G3wx30ZHCS4zdw==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR04MB023521122BB568A8829B4394AF500@DM5PR04MB0235.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(61668805478150)(158342451672863)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:DM5PR04MB0235; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR04MB0235;
x-forefront-prvs: 022649CC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(39450400003)(377454003)(377424004)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(2900100001)(102836003)(6116002)(7906003)(5660300001)(74316002)(92566002)(3846002)(101416001)(7736002)(105586002)(76176999)(50986999)(106116001)(54356999)(106356001)(2906002)(33656002)(97736004)(4326007)(81156014)(38730400002)(8936002)(8676002)(6246003)(189998001)(81166006)(54896002)(55016002)(9686003)(1941001)(122556002)(53546006)(2501003)(2950100002)(229853002)(7696004)(86362001)(66066001)(230783001)(77096006)(3660700001)(54906002)(236005)(99286003)(53936002)(3280700002)(6306002)(8666007)(606005)(68736007)(6436002)(6506006)(25786008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR04MB0235; H:DM5PR04MB0234.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ciena.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR04MB02343AD09F60F7105715D6B9AF500DM5PR04MB0234namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ciena.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Feb 2017 12:50:22.6189 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 457a2b01-0019-42ba-a449-45f99e96b60a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR04MB0235
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/-ay4Lixs7JpID_zE4YjR-pGg0V8>
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:50:28 -0000

Yes, I agree. I should have been more clearer, I meant must for right alignment since,
Not mandating that would cause interop issues.

Himanshu using iPad (so excuse the auto-corrects...)
________________________________
From: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbrisset@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:39:12 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu; Sami Boutros; John E Drake; Alvaro Retana (aretana); draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org
Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; bess-chairs@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Himanshu,

I don’t think we should make the Eth-tag a MUST be 24 bit. It should be MAY  but if you decide to use 24 bits, it MUST be right aligned.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-21, 2:51 PM, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> wrote:

    ‘MAY’ does not work.
    It has to be ‘MUST’, IMO.

    Thanks,
    Himanshu

    On 2/21/17, 2:22 PM, "BESS on behalf of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pbrisset@cisco.com> wrote:

        Folks,

        Why don’t we simply mention that the Eth–Tag is a 32 bit value and MAY be set to a 24 bits instance
        When 24 bits value is used is MAY be right aligned.

        Regards,
        Patrice Brissette

        On 2017-02-21, 2:18 PM, "BESS on behalf of Sami Boutros" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of sboutros@vmware.com> wrote:

            Hi John,

            I can add that the value is from 0 to 0x00ffffff, will that work?


            Thanks,

            Sami
            On 2/21/17, 10:56 AM, "John E Drake" <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:

            >Sami,
            >
            >Snipped, comment inline
            >
            >Yours Irrespectively,
            >
            >John
            >
            >> >
            >> >> Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS service instance
            >> identifier value."
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be aligned in the 32-
            >> bit field.  I’m guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will that the at the
            >> beginning or the end?
            >> >
            >>
            >> I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in the new draft.
            >>
            >
            >[JD]   I don't think you can do this as there are multiple implementations that use 24 bits
            >
            _______________________________________________
            BESS mailing list
            BESS@ietf.org
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


        _______________________________________________
        BESS mailing list
        BESS@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess