Re: [bess] Update to draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11
Hiroshi Tsunoda <tsuno@m.ieice.org> Thu, 02 November 2017 08:54 UTC
Return-Path: <dr.h.t@ieee.org>
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 C201A13F848 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 01:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ieee-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 10FkDlUoETWB for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 01:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22b.google.com (mail-qt0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (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 0D3D913F441 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 01:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id h4so5571523qtk.8 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 01:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=dn/vmIORy9P3PGm97KXzW184IChfgip+XE+qUfM536w=; b=o/gZ2urBscwMOwZ0ITgKLsYDB35fQY216gr++KzZO1TNkTC3R2IASgvaaJaPU4bRpy Hdw4I5wih2enfmNNPToTv3vcGG48iGrzskMPM33CORXN8LkB4csLy5fMd7Bq46j76uoc eHUiCU/71O1t2z+eCpjHn9mhsRwaAVsLrocG2VaDB7dX4eHEZSOG4Fga62WVp6DHQAoA jdE4hM6a3DXV/elC1fciMgamxPbsSEBevPEyh210JE2KupN1H/0iwaHjDRX9WFEepdR9 UuHtDTruvxAFd2FOOoclp0NUHbr8oNF6bE2STsgzyDrs1ALCKYEIzJIay6zAGS0uTbum pocA==
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=dn/vmIORy9P3PGm97KXzW184IChfgip+XE+qUfM536w=; b=VfE8vz4pldvObmxHH8vkhDzyiamXrvfD3xijvNId9XH6WAI0lxZZqWNDq1HSr7XKcr tN1rHkKWStPd4OKpARcAritFu8GJ2cs9169mAamDNvcdxk4qgAB3AM7IzOi+DXudo/LP O/B4bQ7st3TcUvVyuCUf0Vl0oY2fZyWiu7NyqRQKBPHDrbQ/CpSwH0uuqGPoYir0FeQF +cL5vsnC7btWvlW0ZcHJwLmVHgE4uhE077R5i9v/BLFELguSNvI9xIxv4bcHgNLZddFj n5oONJ0+Vl+lzKefmPJLsFjD9ueCDBTk48uZ5x108XrHpYj1+v+TabctcmJQLV7B6389 zc+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaW/JeGNBF3dD3NI6b9PIBzChIBPw7kAgCB4pPXaC0jzz35R8+d/ cB6Km132YUAQ9x+hMB2MLiHNCfnYDwdUmPxj/Ys0jQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T9O4MCFnRpr8Pa5aiSLy/jVeq9pNyvo16eWm7YwQI5ONOi5+GCT4t1OL1A5pjM0t1TX86PeVYAB9mziKp9iI0=
X-Received: by 10.200.63.242 with SMTP id v47mr4070303qtk.29.1509612839943; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 01:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dr.h.t@ieee.org
Received: by 10.140.102.184 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 01:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <730a8e1b-2a90-426b-3497-dab406376ebf@cysols.com>
References: <CAPbjwkyWVNw=2zb6DuO55JbLfa1xXxE0toWsKzSa=7Mrkh+M+A@mail.gmail.com> <730a8e1b-2a90-426b-3497-dab406376ebf@cysols.com>
From: Hiroshi Tsunoda <tsuno@m.ieice.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 09:53:19 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dOorzb7hZRRgHJxSAJo0hIrpUgE
Message-ID: <CAPbjwkxWcjr_VCtqYpp5_+xQthHht06ytBvtf9jvtRWCk9ZQtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/TuS1Zay8iNLEOBQARRuqBopG28o>
Subject: Re: [bess] Update to draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 08:54:05 -0000
Dear Glenn, Thank you very much for your very elaborate review. I will do another editorial check for nits according to your suggestions. Best regards, -- tsuno 2017-11-01 5:07 GMT+01:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: > Hi Tsuno, > Thanks for addressing the issues in the new draft. It > looks good. I do not have any major issues with the MIB. > But before we give a go-ahead I would like to ask to you > do another editorial check for nits.These are basically > s/network/networks/ > type of fixes. > A minor issue with the MIB on naming related mater- > I would suggest > s/l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup/l2L3VpnMcastCoreGroup/ > > Glenn > > > On 2017/10/22 1:14, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >> >> Dear Glenn, >> >> Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update. >> I posted a new revision (-11) as follows. >> >> URL: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11.txt >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> Htmlized: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> Diff: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-11 >> >> Please see the responses for your comments in the followings. >> >> 2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >>> >>> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION >>> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for >>> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present >>> That will make it consistent with the other items. >>> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause. >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015] >>> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section >> >> >> RFC5015 added to the Reference section. >> >>> 3. Page-7,8: says >>> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value >>> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding >>> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel >>> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier." >>> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11) >>> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information >>> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel >>> information (no Tunnel Identifier).' >> >> >> Fixed. Thank you for your advice. >> >>> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION: >>> E: Extension flag [RFC7902] >>> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section >> >> >> Fixed. RFC7902 is now in the Reference section. >> >>> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE >>> "RFC6514, Section 5 >>> RFC7902 >>> " >>> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too. >>> (User-friendly and consistency). >>> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers >> >> >> Added a section point for Sec.3 of RFC7902. >> >>> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero." >>> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the >>> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of >>> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0" >>> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ? >>> >>> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION: >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS >>> Label." >>> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise. >> >> >> In the current revision, these parts are revised as follows. >> When the P-tunnel does not have a correspondent PMSI tunnel >> attribute, the value of this object will be 0. >> >>> 8. Compliance: >>> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows: >>> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> } >>> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup >>> } >> >> >> Fixed along with your comments. Thank you. >> >>> General: >>> 10 Page-2 Section-1 >>> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN) >>> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ? >> >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support >>> multicast. >>> >>> Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of >>> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast. >> >> >> Fixed. Now, the term "L2L3VpnMCast network" is used throughout the >> document. >> >>> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2 >>> Please review the paragraph for readability. >> >> >> Revised the paragraph in order to improve readability. >> >>> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses. >>> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE >> >> >> Thank you for your comments. I adjusted the page-breaks along with this >> comment. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> -- tsuno >> >> 2017-09-02 9:47 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >>> >>> Dear Tsuno, >>> >>> Thanks for the revised draft. I have reviewed the draft. >>> Some issues remain. These are listed below >>> Please consider the issues/comments and update the draft. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> +--------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>> 1. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: DESCRIPTION >>> 1.1 It will be good to give a reference (RFCNNNN) for >>> noTunnelInfo (0) : no tunnel information present >>> That will make it consistent with the other items. >>> This change will require adding RFCNNNN to the REFERENCE clause. >>> 1.2 pimBidir (5) : BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC5015] >>> RFC5015 needs to be added to the Reference section >>> >>> 2. Page-6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: SYNTAX >>> The rewritten SYNTAX clause without the repetitions looks better. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> 3. Page-7,8: says >>> " A L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType object of value >>> noTunnelInfo(0) indicates that the corresponding >>> Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel >>> attribute does not have a Tunnel Identifier." >>> It may be better to align the wording with RFC6514 (Page 11) >>> ' When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information >>> present", the PMSI Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel >>> information (no Tunnel Identifier).' >>> >>> 4. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: DESCRIPTION: >>> E: Extension flag [RFC7902] >>> RFC7902 needs to be added to the Reference section >>> >>> 5. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags: REFERENCE >>> "RFC6514, Section 5 >>> RFC7902 >>> " >>> It will be nice to have a section pointer for RFC7902 too. >>> (User-friendly and consistency). >>> Please check the same for all the REFERENCE clause pointers >>> 6. Page-12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags: DESCRIPTION >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero." >>> This is actually a 48-bit string. What would be the >>> representation of "zero" above be? Will it be a string of >>> length 0, a string containing a single ascii character "0" >>> 6 ascii "0"s, 48 '0' bits ? >>> >>> 7. Page-14: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel: DESCRIPTION: >>> "When UDP-based S-PMSI signaling is used, the value of >>> this object is zero that indicates the absence of MPLS >>> Label." >>> Once again. "zero" above is imprecise. >>> >>> 8. Compliance: >>> It would be good to design the compliance module as follows: >>> l2L3VpnMcastCoreCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> } >>> l2L3VpnMcastFullCompliance: >>> MANDATORY-GROUPS { >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiFieldGroup >>> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup >>> } >>> >>> >>> General: >>> 10 Page-2 Section-1 >>> 10.1 In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPN) >>> In BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ? >>> >>> 10.2 Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast" to mean BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPN that support >>> multicast. >>> >>> Throughout this document, we will use the term >>> "L2L3VpnMCast network" to mean a network that comprises of >>> BGP/MPLS L2 and L3 VPNs and supports multicast. >>> >>> 10.3 Page-4 Section-3 bullet 2 >>> Please review the paragraph for readability. >>> >>> 10.4 It will be good to avoid page-breaks within quoted clauses. >>> example: Page-6 L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType: REFERENCE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017/08/28 3:27, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Glenn, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your comments and for waiting for the update. >>>> I posted a new revision (-10) as follows. >>>> >>>> URL: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10.txt >>>> Htmlized: >>>> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> Htmlized: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> Diff: >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-10 >>>> >>>> In the new revision, the following changes are made. >>>> - Updated the description of following TC and objects >>>> in order to clarify the role of this MIB and to improve >>>> the readability >>>> -- L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId >>>> -- l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable >>>> - Removed some redundant expressions >>>> - Updated compliance statements >>>> >>>> Please see the responses for your comments >>>> in the followings. >>>> >>>> 2017-07-09 14:11 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB:112: [5] {type-without-format} warning: type >>>>> `L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId' has no format specification >>>>> This may be avoided by specifying a format in which the >>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId should be printed. >>>>> Is there a preferred format? How will this be printed? >>>>> One continuous octet string? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The size and format of TunnelID depends on Tunnel Type. >>>> and no preferred format is exist as of now. >>>> Therefore, I have decided to not give format specification >>>> to L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId. >>>> >>>>> A. The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable needs all of the following >>>>> four MOs as index for its rows >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeLabel, >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId >>>>> The l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId by itself is inadequate? If >>>>> yes >>>>> please explain it to me. Or point to the text that contains the >>>>> explanation. >>>>> I have been unable to confirm the above from the draft - that is very >>>>> likely due to my lack of understanding of the l2L3VpnMcast technology. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> According to Sec. 7.4.1.1 of RFC6513, >>>> P-tunnel is identified by its type and id. >>>> Thus, in the latest revision, the following two objects are used as >>>> index of the table. >>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType, >>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> -- tsuno >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > >
- [bess] Update to draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-m… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] Update to draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mca… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] Update to draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mca… Hiroshi Tsunoda