Re: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-03.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 14 November 2008 11:42 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C31F3A6A69 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:42:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvO9vxC07p7n for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DA13A67C0 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:42:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1L0wwZ-00073a-O5 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:34:31 +0000
Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1L0wwT-00072s-Dy for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:34:28 +0000
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id mAEBYIp5008104 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:34:21 GMT
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAEBYH2d008083 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:34:18 GMT
Message-ID: <6F406347BCC84ACBADFEFB8D805A04C6@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <ED3933C0F4204F969196EEA4861F49C6@your029b8cecfe>
Subject: Re: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-03.txt
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:34:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>
Hi, Some thoughts in addition to Attila's comments... === Abstract Can you please expand acronyms (as will be required by the RFC Ed.) I see... SONET SDH TDM ATM GMPLS === Main body of the document. Each acronym needs to be set out in full the first time it is used. I see... SONET SDH TDM ATM IEEE ITU MEF (transfer from later use) GMPLS VLAN (transfer from later use) === Please be consistent with the use of a space in either "IEEE 802" or "IEEE802" The space looks better to me. === Section 1 OLD procedures that will need to be changed is dependent NEW procedures that will need to be changed are dependent === Please be consistent "bidirectional" or "bi-directional" I prefer "bidirectional" and you only use "unidirectional" === Section 2.3.1 OLD o Asymmetric Bandwidth This term refers to the property of a Bi-directional LSP may have differing bandwidth allocation in each direction. NEW o Asymmetric Bandwidth This term refers to a property of a bidirectional LSP that may have differing bandwidth allocation in each direction. === Section 2.3.1 OLD o Bi-directional Congruent LSP This term refers to the property that an LSP shared the same nodes, ports and links. Ethernet data planes are normally bi- directional congruent. NEW o Bidirectional Congruent LSP This term refers to the property of a bidirectional LSP that uses only the same nodes, ports, and links in both directions. Ethernet data planes are normally bidirectional congruent. === Section 2.3.1 o Shared forwarding Shared forwarding is a property of a data path where a single forwarding entry (VID + DMAC) may be used for frames from multiple sources (SMAC). Shared forwarding does not change any data plane behavior it saves forwarding information base (FIB) entries only. From all other aspects it behaves as if there were multiple FIB entries. I don't understand the last sentence. Since there is only one FIB entry, the behavior cannot be as if there were multiple FIB entries. I suggest you either strike this sentence or add an example of what you mean. === Section 2.3.1 o Hierarchical Eth-LSP Hierarchical Eth-LSPs are Eth-LSPs that are encapsulated and tunneled, either individually or bundled, with other LSPs through a domain. I don't like this definition of hierarchical! Normally, we refer to the hierarchical LSP as the LSP that is the tunnel, not the LSP that is encapsulated. I think it would be helpful to remain consistent with RFC4206. === Section 2.4 etc. Please capitalise section headings === Section 2.4 Ethernet is similar to MPLS in that there is a default payload type. In MPLS, the default payload is either another MPLS label or an IP packet. The IP packet may carry any type of service IP carries. Ethernet assumes an Ethernet frame as the default payload. The actual service can be anything that Ethernet carries. I find this paragraph pretty weird! - What do you mean by a "default payload". Try telling the PWE3 working group that LSPs carry either another MPLS label or an IP packet! - How can "the default" payload be either one thing or another? - In what way does Ethernet assume that the default payload of Ethernet is also Ethernet? When would that assumption stop? It sounds arbitrarily recursive! It might help if you explained what value there is to knowing the default payload type. If there is no value *to* the*work*we*are*doing* in this document, then why bother mentioning it? === Section 2.4 Ethernet bridging is different from MPLS in that while the switching decision is taken on whatever is defined as the Ethernet label, that label is usually not swapped at each hop. "Usually"? Note that in MPLS you can use the same label on incoming and outgoing interfaces, but because the label could be swapped, we implement a swapping mechanism in all cases. Now, "usually" implies that sometimes the label may be swapped. This has significant implications for implementation. Perhaps you need to clarify this paragraph quite a bit. It might also help to discuss the context of the label. MPLS label contexts fall into three categories: - node - link - upstream neighbor What can you say about Ethernet? === Section 3 You list - priority level; - preemption characteristics; How are these different? === Section 3 Remove spare blank line between last 2 paras === Section 1 and Section 4.1 Please add a reference where you name LMP === Section 5 I think you should reference RFC3473 alongside RFC3471 === Section 5 OLD Signaling enables the ability to dynamically establish a path from one ingress or egress node. NEW Signaling enables the ability to dynamically establish a path from an ingress node to an egress node. === Section 5 Given this, Eth- LSPs MUST always use paths that share the same routes and fates. I believe you have defined a term specially for this? === Section 5 Eth- LSPs may be either P2P or P2MP (see [RFC4875]). You should probably add that only unidirectional P2MP Eth-LSPs are supported. === Section 5 Note that standard GMPLS does not support different bandwidth in each direction of a bidirectional LSP. See [GMPLS-ASYM] if asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are required. Suggest you change to Note that GMPLS as originally defined in [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] does not support... === Section 8 More detail will be added to the section in a later revision. You are running out of time :-) === Section 9 OLD the ports over which a UNI is defined is trusted NEW the ports over which a UNI are defined is trusted === Section 9 This section is a bit sparse. You should add a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework (currently rev 04) You should describe why the change in data plane type does not impact the control plane security. You should mention the difference between in-band and out-of-band control planes in the Ethernet network since in this case, the data plane type does impact security. In particular, the in-band control plane can be used to attack the data plane capacity, and access to the data plane can be used to attack the control plane. === Thanks, Adrian PS. When you submit the updates, please use the new boilerplate and use idnits to verify everything. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:47 PM Subject: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-03.txt > This email starts a two week working group last call on "GMPLS Ethernet > Label Switching Architecture and Framework" > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-03.txt > > The I-D is marked as Informational. > > Please send your comments to the list by 12 noon GMT Friday 14th November. > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > >
- Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethe… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-… Attila Takacs
- Re: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-… Adrian Farrel
- Last callcomplete : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethern… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Two week last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-… PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri