Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09

Jari Arkko <> Thu, 05 May 2016 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4D112D804; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-ujFX45vEga; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E98D12D866; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60022CC6F; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:28 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dworwgTfOnwJ; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:27 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [] ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF072CC64; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BE5BEC78-2881-436D-A98F-946AE7682CE2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 10:16:25 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, General area reviewing team <>, IESG <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 14:23:02 -0000

Ok. We’re already on the telechat, but the questions seem important. Do the authors have thoughts?


On 05 May 2016, at 09:40, Elwyn Davies <> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09.txt
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2016/05/05
> IETF LC End Date: 2016/04/29
> IESG Telechat date: 2016/05/05
> Summary:
> I have concerns about the trace model used as explained below.  It may be that there is good reason and WG consensus for the model adopted, but it would be good to see some explanation of the rather curious hybrid model used.  There are also significant issues with the description of timestamps and a number of other nits/editorial matters to address.
> Apologies for the last minute delivery.
> Possibly Major issues:
> Trace model:  The tracing model seems to be a curious hybrid of state recording and event logging.  The introduction seems to imply that the tracing model records events.  Indeed it does but state entry events do not appear to get recorded until the sequence transitions out of the state.  I can see that the COMPLETED entries record the total processing period, but this loses the detail of when actual processing of the event starts (as opposed to becoming PENDING).  I was somewhat surprised that a simple chained transition event model was not used (especially since the tracing entries are actually chained together already).
> In particular if some sort of disaster occurs, it seems possible in this model that events in the PENDING queue might never appear in the trace log at all if the request hasn't started being processed. It also doesn't record any preprocessing time before the request becomes PENDING.  If there is a processing bottleneck this could be significant information.
> I was also wondering whether this model traces the arrival and departure of clients (and whether authoentication/authorisation worked or not).   This may be covered by operation types in the architecture which I haven't had time to read in detail.
> Minor issues:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> s1:  The Intro should also contain a description of the intention of the document - basically a slight reworking of the abstract.  It should also outline the association of the framework with the interface (i2rs client<->agent) to which the traceability applies.
> s3:
>> The
>>    ability to automate and abstract even complex policy-based controls
>>    highlights the need for an equally scalable traceability function to
>>    provide event-level granularity of the routing system compliant with
>>    the requirements of I2RS (Section 5 of
>>    [I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]).
> The 'routing system' doesn't have an event-level granularity.  Maybe
> OLD:
> provide event-level granularity of the routing system
> NEW:
> provide recording at event-level granularity of the evolution of the routing system
> s4:  The section ends with this list of 'use cases':
>>    As I2RS becomes increasingly pervasive in routing environments, a
>>    traceability model offers significant advantages and facilitates the
>>    following use cases:
>>    1  Automated event correlation, trend analysis, and anomaly
>>       detection;
>>    2  Trace log storage for offline (manual or tools) analysis;
>>    3  Improved accounting of routing system operations;
>>    4  Standardized structured data format for writing common tools;
>>    5  Common reference for automated testing and incident reporting;
>>    6  Real-time monitoring and troubleshooting;
>>    7  Enhanced network audit, management and forensic analysis
>>       capabilities.
> I have added numbers to facilitate these comments:
> IMO #2 and #4 are either not use cases or a not phrased as use cases.  The automated testing is not really a use case as such. Having these characteristics supports the implementation of the actual use cases.  Related to the data retention comment above, storing some or all of the trace log - and knowing which bits might be critical to control data retention - is a use case but the basic storage is just a necessary prerequisite of doing other things.  I also might suggest a reordering indicating importance perhaps.
> Thus I would suggest replacing this with something like:
>   As I2RS becomes increasingly pervasive in routing environments, a
>   traceability model that supports controllable trace log retention
>   using a standardized structured data format offers significant advantages,
>   such as the ability to create common tools and support automated testing,
>   and facilitates the following use cases:
>   o  Real-time monitoring and troubleshooting of router events;
>   o  Automated event correlation, trend analysis, and anomaly
>      detection;
>   o  Offline (manual or tools-based) analysis of router state evolution
>       from the retained trace logs;
>   o  Enhanced network audit, management and forensic analysis
>       capabilities;
>   o  Improved accounting of routing system operations; and
>   o Providing a standardized format for incident reporting and test logging.
> s5: .. is empty: Empty sections are not desirable.  A brief overview of the following sub-sections should be added (or alternatively promote s5.1 which actually describes the framework).
> s5.1, para 1:
>> Some notable elements of the architecture are in
>>    this section.
> I don't understand this sentence.  If it implies that elements of the architecture are defined in this section then one has to ask 'Why aren't they defined in the architecture document?'  Since s5.1 contains the whole framework, what other elements than the 'some notable' ones are there?
> s5.1, para 2: The term 'northbpund' is not defined (and isn't used in the architecture').
> s5.2: The title is ' I2RS Trace Log Mandatory Fields'  - nothing that isn't mandatory is discussed.  Should there be some words about optional extra fields?
> s5.2, timestamps:  The RFC3339 format doesn't tie up with 32 bit resolution - there are hours and minutes etc and decimal representation is used.  Things like origin for timestamps needs to be defined if they are to be truly useful for comparison outside an individual enterprise (as might be implied by the incident reporting use case).  If RFC 3339 format is really used, then the timestamps need to include the date as well since logs will certainly run over more than one day.  I note that the example in s6 shows full RFC 3339 date/time format examples.
> s5.2, Applied Operation Data:  Does the Operation Data Present flag apply to this field?  Can this be present even if there is no Requested Operation Data?
> s5.2, Result Code: Need to expand acronym RIB.
> s7.2:  One key point about timestamping (motivated by bitter experience) is that timestamps need to be recorded at the point when the event actually happens and not when the event is (potentially significantly later) entered into the log.  Logging is (as indicated) often allocated a low priority and event log writing may end up being postponed for a considerable time.
> s11: I would consider I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement and I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements to be Informative; and
> I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model, RFC 3339 and possibly RFC 5424 to be normative.
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list