Re: [bess] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 21:57 UTC
Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 0A76812DDD2; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Qg4dbsHFisRh; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl0-x243.google.com (mail-pl0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::243]) (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 2544E12D959; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl0-x243.google.com with SMTP id v3so8200675plg.3; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WpJEEA8//ORD4EnFB4PvWFL276YbNfMLSmxerOE2DoY=; b=Yz4wjTH+09+l81sg8/WVEVmoIG3NnQOYmSCk9EaEX9S2Z3TduMOExI+UxXDzFIlecV bsXf90eOxTPaoI2X1WxWB23+Cw1yY1+yERwv+V3HaEav+yaAVECVlmqDkRGxGXKXw/Bk 57m3lzmUqfU6lPTwnrpry4V3NJSd8EZKxYzyLtROLyHan6cw0uFFvSPMUwL9YdRidb5W slqfJDltGJd/OBDvqEF4ltrVJ0LWVHw7YT9RdkdseECZ40TPWzrHRqtqJL6m3iEBBBXT Eeg2n3FSwAfQRjyj08K5hxxHadxIPVmEmlq8xlzmLqqgknwLowszoduTKJXBtQTjcu0l EOow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WpJEEA8//ORD4EnFB4PvWFL276YbNfMLSmxerOE2DoY=; b=K0IynsXfPkxBYRiBsIyeCk+i5KWajyICSOuTyHvdaQrS3a7Gjzvc297Q20hm4pf1mD VHDeRW3euFmA+BeJDjr2XegumROVPuM+/eS0M6fwf68EcfeaBY/j7voxHOq8Xewylkug /QzLLD5KZgHwLdaojTLizjLIDPH+BNUs6QQURT8NoWHukGsDCe5d/YLv/VWjbn+5zHtz t/t2epeEQglm+DP7vjVx0mAtnUYlz5BgNI7We+bmfrmii6sT2sNh1aqjZl5R7Fk31Ggt 3fnfc/vDVckluq4XQqlaLUjrbOdB3zBuG0cnfWGrRisRztjOgiUDj8OuPf0VnlWwkiG+ GyDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAe478jp8I5k2J/AScU+omyzdV52RcQtIVkKlr5fH0dpypjiFah OjATp7JcW7hIq8uUiUVnmZxSuPtyXoc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227sJkMNRf5+PQBUKPAOB8q+qu9ZnojqBSeRKkpEf9gC1eD5sPO+Mt8yUtLuguxdwsWVPrtlHQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a02:: with SMTP id v2-v6mr970441plp.312.1519163822186; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4700:1280:910:e8c:e445:7328? ([2601:647:4700:1280:910:e8c:e445:7328]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z79sm17589977pfa.139.2018.02.20.13.57.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <151916318522.3854.1025763240508231373@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:02:34 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D674A3E6-05D9-43BB-9F07-4397920E393B@gmail.com>
References: <151916318522.3854.1025763240508231373@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/jVEQyQPwgceHbJm0GUdJJYKt0IU>
Subject: Re: [bess] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:57:05 -0000
Sorry for the formatting issue. Let me fix and resend the review. > On Feb 20, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Mahesh Jethanandani > Review result: Has Issues > > {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1561\cocoasubrtf200 > {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;\f1\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier;} > {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} > {\*\expandedcolortbl;;\cssrgb\c0\c0\c0;} > \margl1440\margr1440\vieww10800\viewh8400\viewkind0 > \deftab720 > \pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0 > > \f0\fs24 \cf0 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational > directorate\'92s\'a0ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG. \'a0These\'a0comments were written with the intent of improving > the operational\'a0aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed > in last call may be\ included in AD reviews during the IESG review. > \'a0Document editors and\'a0WG chairs should treat these comments just like any > other last call\'a0comments.\ \ Document reviewed: > \'a0draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03\ \ Summary: \ \ > \pard\pardeftab720\sl300\partightenfactor0 \cf2 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 > This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow label > states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures. > \f1\fs26\fsmilli13333 \ \pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0 > > \f0\fs24 \cf0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \ > Document Status:\ > \ > Has Issues\ > \ > Comments:\ > \ > The following comments look at the document both from an operational > perspective as well as a management perspective. \ \ Operational > Considerations:\ \ Operational considerations include installation and initial > setup, migration path, requirements on other protocols, impact on network > operations and verification of correct operation.\ \ The draft defines an > OPTIONAL mode of operation. An OPTIONAL definition, per RFC 2119 is:\ \ > \pard\pardeftab720\sl280\partightenfactor0 > > \f1 \cf2 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 An implementation which does not > include a particular option MUST be\ > prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does\ > include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the\ > same vein an implementation which does include a particular option\ > MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which\ > does not include the option\ > \pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0 > > \f0 \cf0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \ > The draft needs to describe what the reduced functionality is acceptable, what > the box that supports the implementation of the optional feature do when the > other implementation does not, and what is the behavior of the device which > does not support the feature do, when it has to interoperate with a device > which does support it. Note, this is more about what the device is supposed to > do, after the said device may have signaled to the other end about the expected > behavior. E.g. If the devices have exchanged T=1 and R=1, but the other end > does not send a flow-label, what is the receiver supposed to do? See more below > under management considerations.\ \ The document defines the default mode of > operation, i.e. a single path to preserve the packet delivery order, is > important from an initial installation and setup point of view. The draft also > makes a note that the default value of T and R is set to zero for > implementations that do not support this feature, which is helpful for > installations that do not have this feature.\ \ Management Considerations:\ \ > Management considerations include interoperability, fault management, > configuration management, accounting, performance and security.\ \ The > interoperability will be a little more clear once the draft documents the > optional behavior for the fault condition raised above. Related to that, if a > fault is detected, say by the receiver, how is that indicated to any management > station?\ \ I assume that the configuration of this feature will be taken by > the BGP or a related YANG model.\ \ For accounting purposes, the documents > needs to describe how an operator would know where all in the network, the > feature is in use, and how well the feature is helping in load-balancing the > traffic. Is this also going to be captured in the YANG model?\ \ A run of > idnits reveals two warnings, the second of which can be ignored:\ \ > \pard\pardeftab720\sl280\partightenfactor0 > > \f1 \cf2 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 -- The document seems to lack a > disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may\ > have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you\ > have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant\ > the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore\ > this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. \ > (See the Legal Provisions document at\ > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)\ > \ > IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.c(iii):\ > This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF\ > Contributions published or made publicly available before\ > November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in\ > some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the\ > right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF\ > Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the\ > person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this\ > document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,\ > and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF\ > Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC\ > or to translate it into languages other than English.\ > \ > -- The document date (August 23, 2017) is 181 days in the past. Is this\ > intentional?\ > } > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > OPS-DIR@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com
- Re: [bess] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of d… Mahesh Jethanandani
- [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess… Mahesh Jethanandani