Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2ADC3A0AE5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=AFJGRiGV; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=0xmFoluW
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 5Sg1BzrTZZKO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820CE3A08D8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10096; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597788934; x=1598998534; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ROGeBu/iVoF0Zd0A/R0AvTBmQuCZpwkyVP1AotcXI9Y=; b=AFJGRiGVJPqNXU5UMEkyjCdDTdXM/DK/k5cwSRtUbXDsm8erTVHWXNPC Xhy3JPDNkoVh/CnFsTySUfuQvxI+QeKZLPz69t6c25mmGdQ7YBVDstk+H kTUIUUL14F3rS9+23uHk5HPCgN/FR6MLK3OZhHocCDxVU5PQj4nQ4zfhF M=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A9WuDeh/Nnjqji/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZRaN5PhxghnOR4qIo/5Hiu+DtafmVCRA5Juaq3kNfdRKUA?= =?us-ascii?q?NNksQZmQEsQavnQU32JfLndWo2ScJFUlI2/nynPw5SAsmtL1HXq2e5uDgVHB?= =?us-ascii?q?i3PAFpJ+PzT4jVicn/1+2795DJJQtSgz/oarJpJxLwpgLU5cQ=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C4AAAXUjxf/40NJK1VChoBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAwEBAQESAQEBAQICAQEBAUCBSoFSUQdwWC8sCoQtg0YDjVuKCI5hglM?= =?us-ascii?q?DVQsBAQEMAQEYDQgCBAEBhEwCF4IIAiQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAE?= =?us-ascii?q?LhXEBAQEDAQEBEBEEDQwBASwLAQQHBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICHwYLFQgIAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?EDgUIGoMFgksDDiABDqZDAoE5iGF2fzODAQEBBYE3AoQNDQuCDgMGgQ4qgnG?= =?us-ascii?q?CVEtDhkwbggCBEUOCTT6BBIEWQgEBAgGBLxUad4IeM4ItkBuCaKJfUQqCYoh?= =?us-ascii?q?kjD6FIIMAiVyFMohdgxGCJ5I7ikSCZY1whCcCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWojgVdwFTu?= =?us-ascii?q?CaVAXAg2OHzeDOoUUhUJ0AjUCBgEJAQEDCXyNKQeBLgGBEAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,329,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="794052298"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Aug 2020 22:15:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07IMFRQj006855 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:15:27 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:15:27 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:15:26 -0500
Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:15:26 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ZPNqT2jtx+PohkxsbMNd+FKhW3cUNvamPto9j1NEwd40PQF2Knzzaki/55uPnBIIY7jlsasUBwUPq/sicoa4ZXj8yx2JdVLmHR2zeXqzOE9UuDlkTTlfqq7E6TYTaS4eP8hmUR0iM2H/BhI+PsZs5+1T1to73LtC5vUChlEmlcnL0ouZz7tmBBgqNvmmpy6fReyEuR8nogxYnrIxLg/f9sbrhkBcoKbRLAvzBOuvgHDD1vZjalQDD69+sv/N1EPfolhKOCZPO/eBbaQpu45O64QFIQj5RKsTGF8QxBNzD3L/O78z5M5HFGmV4UuxLFoga1uQcrXUy5WUbTLa6eM+IA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ROGeBu/iVoF0Zd0A/R0AvTBmQuCZpwkyVP1AotcXI9Y=; b=RWAD3GLI6TtZdyiRJDNy96h5pSm7q+ARusuy9g6NJtGCUsqaAzt//0X5c0MJP3p+mgnaA4xLmrlC1nnf/P5Jd8wY/oNNhwd5oA4lGlEbS2EA+DXgQ01u9f98IiCMxIaYiqIyn90wRuCqEIty0LhHkiNCMhKXe2iG120/yVNsptj6ib1p21kBQm5i/AIXJ0svBGre2quaUo8i1qvjx/+irKD5nMvIiG+OPWmlUUkmXRlOHlu17qqxUlBhztp6F2PEzb5SRMVEo5OI9mF863UGE801XqmqNp+3s70WQUIFyqhBda9U3IgjpERBB+MdD9s6hy7iT3M7hTg4QYg0Day/rA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ROGeBu/iVoF0Zd0A/R0AvTBmQuCZpwkyVP1AotcXI9Y=; b=0xmFoluWr9BNCJKyyJiQLwQ3Xs8ELOjXW7/4O7DVZFyKUgXBXuzlrELI24B2cHvN9TCzfxVaSpkuFxjBwqi2uJAbpkTQuNqzXSevn/G3Ql034jeSX3IXBwKhXRqpDyX2SpzLi+hYu7J9SaLCeAJVHp88c0U/O8I+Ix1vkIjEXdk=
Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN6PR11MB3873.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:83::37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.22; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:15:25 +0000
Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4ced:474b:c85e:9533]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4ced:474b:c85e:9533%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3283.028; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:15:25 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
Thread-Index: AdZoFVxuAu0BfSLCTG+HCqIezbKcGQHxEU2QAThRN5AAHWyhAAAdlqLg
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:15:24 +0000
Message-ID: <BN7PR11MB25472678D6ACAB82912141A6CF5C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN7PR11MB254783295780CA79CDA1FAB3CF4F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB254779A3599EFC466605CD92CF450@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB25477ED8552DF78132E2F089CF5F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DFF9367A-5D78-4795-988A-FCD37F3C6377@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <DFF9367A-5D78-4795-988A-FCD37F3C6377@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.90]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5db0b1f1-0ac0-4315-2658-08d843c434d8
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB3873:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB3873A78C575C306638287FDECF5C0@BN6PR11MB3873.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: iW/FUodK0xyPPeeBYhf2H/yI7mvaWeCKygPtSc6yOObrvIxbwieqhwEatg6z83iAsTB05dmoSSdpVgK6EugYNAeOgb7EFAnO1nbxF+S9M+9ZDfXXSsZiSEicPrGuF+fUtfsHNeTHD7+tDS9B8A0lplm69jAXU2BStkoMZdXjrerUZ6EgcLIgDVRmmN0Ztr4X6vsVZLzQVTrY7Ln7dVD35pMB/BnDtBpeQDkeuI2wATHbUJN19mM0YnAslvFbfaal/0ZM1WAdP85qZqMFscTHb3r4JnpLLAN6NDpKoDmGSqtaPorB+Tke4TTa7ZQ6ZsN0KGeOtsU3U27nIRvQdOH2ksp42qRQxs21MnhEagGe9bNzVgrApHmoE0HCGJgjr6iNdUImNW/4nJ/0LYEKa+/fQA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(52536014)(86362001)(26005)(478600001)(5660300002)(4326008)(186003)(8936002)(66574015)(2906002)(66476007)(66446008)(64756008)(55016002)(66556008)(6916009)(66946007)(7696005)(71200400001)(9686003)(966005)(83380400001)(33656002)(8676002)(6506007)(53546011)(316002)(76116006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5db0b1f1-0ac0-4315-2658-08d843c434d8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Aug 2020 22:15:25.0048 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ERUsZyfcoxef1iB6X++yE6WNKA5LwYHFm9cqKZFt/Ya94nK7gid0wYWRFYr4f8jI
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB3873
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/UVx77xNJJUQPo22Kfis8PKJ15Uo>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:15:37 -0000

Thanks Ole ... I had also flagged that requirement as an issue in my shepherd review as it is not very clear.

I think the not configured on the relay means that the destination address hasn't been assigned as an address on one of the relay's interfaces.

I do wonder though what the "normal" router behavior would be - would it not just send the packet back and also send an ICMP redirect? And, why does this needs to be called out specially isn't clear?


Anyway, here's my comments for the shepherd review.

First, I do support this document moving forward.

Abstract:

"when the DHCPv6 relay function is not co-located with the DHCPv6 server function" is a bit weird as why would the relay even be needed in this case?

And, "time synchronization between DHCP functional elements" is really not covered much - it translate into O-3 as best I can gather? Just wondering if it is really worth mentioning in the abstract - but that leaves just "rejection of client's messages and other problems". Perhaps reworking this to provide a list of the main problems is worth considering? FYI  - you could add some kind of data recovery/persistence in case of 'crash'/restart?

I also wonder if the last paragraph should just say "for a DHCPv6 relay when used for relaying prefixes delegated". Is PD really need here?

Section 1:

"mentions the deployment scenario", perhaps change the to this?

"on its network-facing interface" is a bit unclear. Network is too generic. Perhaps to its "uplink interface" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_link#Uplink).

I'm not so clear why the last paragraph is important. And, it doesn't translate into a requirement? Perhaps one should be added if you think this is worth pointing out (over and above what RFC8415 has). Note that section 3.1 deals more with known messages and 'acting as a server'.

Section 2.2:

s/The client request prefixes/The client requests prefixes/

Also, wonder if adding something about uplink / downlink to the Figure 1 might help in clarifying things elsewhere? Also, nice to give figures titles.

If you do add uplink/downlink, you could say "client facing (downlink) interface" or something similar.

Section 3.1:

s/delegating router/delegating relay/?

Would adding something about "or contains an unknown option" be useful to include here ... we don’t want relay's to not forward messages because they don't understand a "new" option? But this is already covered in Section 16 of RFC8415 (see below), so it may not be worth re-enforcing this as RFC8415 is already clear on this. I just raise it for your consideration (feel free to ignore).

   Clients, relay agents, and servers MUST NOT discard messages that
   contain unknown options (or instances of vendor options with unknown
   enterprise-number values).  These should be ignored as if they were
   not present.  This is critical to provide for future extensions of
   DHCP.

I might add that perhaps a new paragraph to this section that reads something like:

	Relay implementers are reminded that RFC8415 makes it clear that relays MUST NOT drop
	(and hence not relay) packets that either contains message codes (Section 19 of RFC8415)
	it may not understand or contain options that it does not understand (Section 16 of RFC8415).

Or perhaps just add to General Requirements?

Section 3.2:

s/delegating router/delegating relay/?

Section 4

Comment related to the requirements ... should these be tied back to the earlier sections? In some cases, it seems that requirements were added that aren't directly related to the earlier discussions? Should there be a "See section 3.x" added to identify where the requirement came from?

Section 4.1:
G-1 - This one is a bit weird as is "delegating router" correct"? Isn't this all about relays? But if this is just a general "ROUTER" requirement, is it really appropriate here? I think this is related to "relays" and hence it should just be "relay"?

Section 4.2:
I had issues with R-4 ... see Ole's discussion and the top of this message.

Section 4.4:
O-3: "delegating routers" -> "delegating relays"? See your terminology in 2.1.

Section 7:

This is a bit light and may want to reference Section 22 of RFC8415? Perhaps something about "This document does not add any new security considerations beyond those mentioned in Section 22 of RFC8415."?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: otroan@employees.org <otroan@employees.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:24 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020

I have read through the document, reading section 4 thoroughly.
I think it looks fine and ready to advance.

A comment:

   R-4:    If the relay has an existing route for a delegated prefix via
           an interface, and receives ingress traffic on this interface
           with a destination address from the delegated prefix (not
           configured on the relay), then it MUST be dropped.

I struggle to understand what R-4 is trying to say.
In one sentence it says it has a delegated prefix, then it says "not configured on the relay"...?


Best regards,
Ole



> On 17 Aug 2020, at 19:23, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi … just a friendly reminder. We’ve had very little input to the WGLC.
>  
> Tim and I will review the responses and evaluate the WGLC later this week (Friday), so you do have a few more days to respond.
>  
> 	• Bernie
>  
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:20 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
>  
> Hi … just a friendly reminder regarding this WGLC.
>  
> Thanks to Ted Lemon for reviewing and commenting!
>  
> 	• Bernie
>  
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> 
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:07 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
>  
> Hi:
>  
> The authors believe this document is ready for WGLC. Therefore, the chairs are initiating a WGLC on this document.
>  
> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward or not by end of day on Monday, August 17th, 2020.
>  
> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-01.. This is a Standards Track document.
>  
> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing).
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> 	• Tim & Bernie
>  
> --
>  
> From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 8:20 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Requesting a WGLC of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
>  
> Hello chairs,
>  
> We, as authors of the draft, are of the opinion that the draft is ready for WGLC.  Can you please check and initiate the same?
>  
> Yours,
> Naveen.
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg