Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 16:25 UTC
Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326371A8AD0; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 W_vvSUmIGcT9; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444E51A8957; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWU29223; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:25:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:25:15 +0100
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.225]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:08 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQz42X2rMczB0jQUu/SmqkwLswI539xTTwgBm7roCABw4TIA==
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:25:08 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729D0FC76@dfweml706-chm>
References: <20150805144646.28443.8959.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729CFC2DF@dfweml706-chm> <CAG4d1rfUX1F8K6m4ZpXyPw0M9RsjAMXiZPbBR8=Ra_bWRREP4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfUX1F8K6m4ZpXyPw0M9RsjAMXiZPbBR8=Ra_bWRREP4A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.129.160]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729D0FC76dfweml706chm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/TTo_CuM0MmwkaWdyOFnrGSRy2f4>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:25:28 -0000
Hi Alia, Thank you for providing your good comments. Please see in-line for my comments. Best regards, Young From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 4:07 PM To: Leeyoung Cc: The IESG; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Young, My apologies for the long delay in responding. My responses are in-line. Thanks, Alia On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com<mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Alia, Thank you first of all for providing very useful comments. Here's my attempt to your comments/DISCUSS. Please see inline. Thanks. Young -----Original Message----- From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 9:47 AM To: The IESG Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org>; ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org> Subject: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to see clearer descriptions on particularly the error-handling around multiple TLVs and sub-TLVs. I see a few points of ambiguity - as described below. I think these should be straightforward to clarify but interoperability could be affected if this isn't done. Thanks! In Sec 2, it says "Only one Optical Node Property TLV shall be advertised in each LSA." What is the error-handling if multiple of this TLV are seen? YOUNG>> This is to allow for fine granularity changes in topology per [RFC3630]. It is not an error per se if there are multiple of this TLV are in each LSA. Is that a SHALL or a "at most one... MUST be advertised"? I'd expect normative language. YOUNG>> "SHALL" seems to be right one, again per [RFC3630]. [Alia] Ok - SHALL is fine. Perhaps text like "To allow for fine granularity changes in topology, only one Optical Node Property TLV SHALL be advertised in each LSA. An implementation MUST support receiving multiple Optical Node Property TLVs in an LSA." YOUNG>> From another email thread (per Adrian), we discussed this. NEW When using the extensions defined in this document, at least one Optical Node Property TLV MUST be advertised in each LSA. To allow for fine granularity changes in topology, more than one Optical Node Property TLV MAY be advertised in a single LSA. Implementations MUST support receiving multiple Optical Node Property TLVs in an LSA. END In Sec 2, it says " Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub- TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability are dynamic in nature while the rest are static. As such, they can be separated out from the rest and be advertised with multiple TE LSAs per OSPF router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250]." So - one can advertise multiple TE LSAs - each with at most one Optical Node Property TLV and at most one of these sub-TLVs? YOUNG>> This is correct except that the Optical Node Property TLV would carry "at least" one of these sub-TLVs as opposed to "at most one of these sub-TLVs." For instance, one TE LSA can carry one Optical Node Property TLV under which two dynamic sub-TLVs (i.e., the Resource Block Pool State sub-TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability sub-TLV) can be advertised while another TE LSA can carry one Optical Node Property TLV under which the rest of static sub-TLVs can be advertised. [Alia] Ok. Thanks for clarifying. If the same sub-TLV appears in different TE LSAs, how are they merged or is a particular one preferred and the rest ignored? I see the text in the previous paragraph of "If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received, only the first one of the same type is processed and the rest are ignored upon receipt." but what does the "first one" mean? Is that decided based on a particular identifier? YOUNG>> The text in Section 2 you quoted is not dealing with the case for two different TE LSAs. In such case, then the sub-TLVs will identify by the value of the sub-TLV. The case you are referring to is for the case where the same sub-TLV is advertised in different TE LSAs. It should NOT happen that way, but in case it happens by mistake of packaging, then it will be updated one after another. There is no way for the routers to distinguish this sub-TLV as the same one (as it is under different TE LSAs), which is actually fine. It is not an error condition. The router would simply process the same sub-TLV multiple times. I can suggest the following changes: OLD: All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical Node TLV. If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received, only the first one of the same type is processed and the rest are ignored upon receipt. These restriction need not apply to future sub-TLVs. Unrecognized sub-TLVs are ignored. NEW: All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical Node TLV under one TE LSA. If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received, only the first one of the same type is processed and the rest are ignored upon receipt. These restriction need not apply to future sub-TLVs. Unrecognized sub-TLVs are ignored. [Alia] My concern is about the phrase "only the first one" because two different routers may received the TE LSAs in different order depending upon flooding dynamics. I would much rather that you define a tie-breaking mechanism - for instance picking the largest LSA ID (Sec 2.2 of RFC 3630), because that is considered newer. YOUNG>> Thanks for the reference. Taking the largest LSA ID is a good idea in this situation. How about then: NEW All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical Node TLV under one TE LSA. If more than one copy of the sub-TLV is received, in the same LSA, the redundant sub-TLV SHOULD be ignored. In case where the same sub-TLV Is advertised in different TE LSA (which would take place only by a packaging error), then the sub-TLV with the largest LSA ID (Sec 2.2 of RFC 3630) SHOULD be picked. These restriction need not apply to future sub-TLVs. Unrecognized sub-TLVs are ignored. END In case where the same sub-TLV is advertised in different TE LSAs (which would take place by a packaging error), then the sub-TLV will be updated one after another. There is no way for the routers to distinguish this sub-TLV as the same one (as it is under different TE LSAs), which is actually fine. It is not an error condition. The router would simply process the same sub-TLV multiple times. [Alia] Wouldn't the information contained be redundant? I'm not sure why you think that the duplication can't be detected based on fields in the sub-TLV. Again, just a simple tie-breaker would provide interoperability. YOUNG>> Please see the previous comment. END. In Sec 3.1, "The format of the SCSI MUST be as depicted in the following figure:" implies that both the Available Label Sub-TLV and the Shared Backup Label Sub-TLV must be included and in the specified order. Please clarify (and use separate diagrams) details about how many times each sub-TLV can appear, if ordering matters, and how to handle conflicts or duplicates. YOUNG>> Good point. I would relax "MUST" to "SHALL" as there is no issue of ordering here. The number of each sub-TLV depends on the number of labels this field describes. If we were talking about, 100 channel (wavelength) system, this can be as many as 100 sub-TLVs for the Available Label sub-TLV + Shared Backup Label TLV. But there are ways to reduce the entry by Label Range, etc per [Gen-Encode]. In case duplicated sub-TLVs appear (which should not happen), the router/node will ignore the duplicated labels which are identified by the Label format defined in [RFC6205]. May I suggest the following changes: OLD The format of the SCSI MUST be as depicted in the following figure: NEW The format of the SCSI SHALL be as depicted in the following figure: END [Alia] How about "A SCSI may contain multiple Available Label sub-TLVs and multiple Shared Backup Label sub-TLVs. The following figure shows the format for a SCSI that contains these sub-TLVs. The order of the sub-TLVs in the SCSI is arbitrary." YOUNG>> Accepted. OLD Where the Available Label Sub-TLV and Shared Backup Label sub-TLV are defined in [Gen-Encode]. (right below Figure 1) NEW Where the Available Label Sub-TLV and Shared Backup Label sub-TLV are defined in [Gen-Encode]. In case where duplicated sub-TLVs are advertised, the router/node will ignore the duplicated labels which are identified by the Label format defined in [RFC6205]. END [Alia] Sounds good. End of Sec 4: "In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore..." First, please be explicit in what behavior MUST be done. YOUNG>> malformed sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings refer to that which are not parse-able due to corruption, etc. and cannot be stored in the TED. How about adding a new sentence to describe the expected action as follows: OLD In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring the entire LSA. NEW In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring the entire LSA. This should not stop the LSA advertisement process. [Alia] Usually, one doesn't reflood LSAs with malformed TLVs or sub-TLVs. I'm certainly willing to listen to reasoning on why flooding potentially corrupt data would be a good idea, but you'll need really clear reasoning. YOUNG>> We discussed in other thread. To-recap here, how about NEW In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, the proper action SHOULD log the problem and MUST stop sending the LSA in which to contain malformed TLVs or sub-TLVs. END Is this just for malformed sub-TLVs? Is it safe to assume that sub-TLVs further on in the TLV (or following TLVs) can be properly parsed? YOUNG>> Yes we are just talking about malformed sub-TLVs. It is safe to assume that other sub-TLVs in the TLV or following TLVs can be properly parsed as they are a distinct sets of info elements with proper sub-TLV types, TLV types. [Alia] Are you picturing that a sub-TLV is malformed if its length isn't accurate or just if one of the fields inside the sub-TLV is using a bad value or setting a reserved value? In the latter cases, perhaps it might be tolerable to assume that there wasn't data-corruption that will affect the rest of the parsing - but I'm dubious. For the first, if the length is wrong, then you can't accurately know where the next sub-TLV starts so all parsing after isn't trustable, IMHO. YOUNG>> Both cases. Please see the previous comment. I think in either case, the safe way is to stop the LSA advertisement. Second, please add in some words about the expected load of logs. YOUNG>> How about adding one sentence followed by "In case..." NEW The expected load of logs is not expected to be a high volume as malformed TLVs do not occur frequently in GMPLS. END [Alia] Uh - of course error conditions aren't expected to be common! How about considering how often the advertising router might send the LSA? How about considering the number of neighbors that will be flooding it? How about dampening the number of logs? Making it a MAY log also makes it clear that it's up to the implementation. YOUNG>> Per Adrian’s suggestion, how about: NEW Errors of this nature SHOULD be logged for the local operator. Implementations MUST provide a rate limit on such logs, and that rate limit SHOULD be configurable. END ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In Sec 2, it's useful to use TBA1, TBA2, etc. instead of reusing TBA - adds to clarity of the text and makes it easier to make sure replacement is done properly when the values are assigned. YOUNG>> Good point. I will change that way as you suggest. In Sec 3.1, it says " The technology specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs. Two types of Bandwidth sub-TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):" If this document is creating the bandwidth sub-tlv space, then this draft simply assigns initial values - so no need for the "TBA by IANA". YOUNG>> Correct. Will address that. In Sec 4, "In a typical node configuration, the optical node property TLV will not exceed the IP MTU." Can you please describe the assumptions about a "typical node configuration"? In a few years, these assumptions are likely to have changed. YOUNG>> I can add: NEW A typical node configuration refers to a system with several hundreds of channels. In addition, [WSON-Encode] provides mechanisms to compactly encode required information elements. END [Alia] Thanks - could you take this one step further and specify about the expected size of the TLV based on these assumptions? YOUNG>> OK. I will calculate this and add in the text in the revision. Thanks, Alia
- [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-w… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-cca… Leeyoung