Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 21 October 2016 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8C512964D for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 WBijCpoQ6JZ7 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 03C87129640 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m5so96182197qtb.3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mr//l3UO6avzsuZRlT0otz4GuMfk/nJPdmB8lHqjJUg=; b=E7G1lyBUPvDmD4MNd1H9EJ1K+y+fIYWIUfOGOr49oUeYc+bZBaUVfjFLipXYHFyZAP RkaEZ+bxnv3L1efReDXHmBJxuReUxcOP8LmFxQfHx+3SkG3qBgfkcX6tIZiIMG6yYcKp +VzvUwwyWdr7P/UljG3EKTkmLOg6xrnIy3qGGmA7kElTmC7pH+QfJejhyrBdguAADXQU 46DFZDnwgx4URvwnN7sZCwPmaNCCnT6+zmYNHictSTzhdb4rlk3dQgf5ECq0LZ5lJN+G +1hCD+FG1qErqiIYBdt+8hfAVIg/xjnwMtZbt6P+eIb5S7e0Bmc5dZjSlg9SW+gENaDM 9Ytg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mr//l3UO6avzsuZRlT0otz4GuMfk/nJPdmB8lHqjJUg=; b=h2kG1Ibf6EWNtTEyrGCYUw8dMHepPXC+yM0kRN3qMy9yXcuRspDmF9KdsJ+ryK3uWk 4KJLXEJ+Rf5+VJ9Oa/NWd+fDO3+jU/3YFurzLE7S1eA7eIA9x/7TXybSln/usKghVo8I +QiSYqVqOtgwSaMb+UiJEC5yrMiZdNHj1fxS6QzhmwPIGcaOVT6AlbpkrCU3YyUjhKz6 Hrvzx5bw+n/g55ScVkhubmWvEOZ1hVGINM/I8AC0UJpNZT+sL1xHwFuB96185B0OGqY4 OrVqFeOTV/QdEBkkl1A/47Wph6htPEcNN5OAabZwEcPrCTMb1QWN6+omr4tbcat7EaZL wphg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdU/7v6+MTZ2Q0zkWfsqrgfo+zf8+9x5bTfw2CnqI1cA5r7W4fdibT/gaFZSghMIIfYWlIg1cTIc04q+XuD
X-Received: by 10.237.59.28 with SMTP id p28mr3532081qte.62.1477083861986; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.147.196 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f650f9ff-24ff-836f-a2d9-9b8e50b5e43f@alum.mit.edu>
References: <e529d886-eefe-bf21-7bef-99c2add33abf@alum.mit.edu> <f650f9ff-24ff-836f-a2d9-9b8e50b5e43f@alum.mit.edu>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLfCV1cUQOR=bT_GSUdA5RRRO+HcX=n1wf+G8VNyfkgtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c190964e5c5cf053f666218"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/G5G9ko7Oi0Q59wHpzC6LJKi_KIc>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 21:04:26 -0000

A very quick note (I'm on a plane, door about to close).

We recognize that this document has issues; the primary author has become
busy with other stuff, and many of the other authors have changed companies
/ roles. The chairs are finding some additional authors to provide
assistance.

Your comments are important / will be addressed, but it may take some time
(or we may end up having to abandon the document, which would be sad).

W

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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 <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2016-10-21
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-30
> IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-27
>
> Summary:
>
> (Note: the document is unchanged since last call, so this is a repeat of
> my last-call review.)
>
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
> review.
>
> General Impression: I was able to generally understand what this document
> is trying to do, and the details generally seem to be there. But I was
> unable to put all the pieces together to make the entire thing work. I
> think this is due to problems with the organization of the document and
> possibly some missing pieces of information. I feel this document needs
> some reorganization if it is to be understood by somebody new to it.
>
> Issues:
>
> Major: 5
> Minor: 9
> Nits:  0
>
> (NOTE: I had a lot of trouble classifying the level of the issues. I
> finally decided to classify the Major if there is insufficient information
> to do an implementation. But take these classifications with a grain of
> salt.)
>
> (1) MINOR: Normative language:
>
> This document clearly intends to use normative language - there are
> numerous occurrences of "MUST". However I also find a number of uses of
> "shall" (never upper case) that appear to me to be intended as normative
> statements.
>
> (2) MINOR: Figure 4:
>
> This figure shows the WTP having two distinct Alternate Tunnels for SSID1.
> This seems to imply that data traffic to/from SSID1 be classified and
> routed to one or the other of these two tunnels. But I could find no
> discussion of any logic for doing this.
>
> (3) MAJOR: Section 3 (Protocol Considerations):
>
> This section has some organizational problems that make the document
> difficult to. This is hinted at by the very vague title.
>
> It defines three new CAPWAP message Elements, to be included in certain
> CAPWAP messages:
>
> - Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations: is intended for inclusion in
> a CAPWAP Join Request from a WTP to an AC.
>
> - Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations: is intended for inclusion in an IEEE
> 802.11 WLAN Configuration Request message from an AC to a WTP.
>
> - IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication: is intended for
> inclusion in a CAPWAP messages from a WTP to an AC. The message type(s)
> that should carry this were unclear to me, though probably evident to
> someone familiar with CAPWAP.
>
> An extensible set of Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation types is defined.
> These are referenced by both Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations and
> Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations.
>
> Each of these requires specification of an Information Element used to
> configure it. The document defines only three of the these. (The definition
> of the others is deferred to future documents.) The definitions of these
> are also direct subsections of section 3, though they are a very different
> sort of thing than the earlier subsections.
>
> Of these three, two are quite simple and understandable. The third (GRE)
> appears to be very complex, with nested sub-elements. I was unable to fully
> decipher this. (More below.)
>
> (4) MINOR: Section 3.2 (Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type):
>
> Section 3.1 shows the Tunnel-Type being carried in an 8-bit field, while
> section 3.2 uses a 16-bit field. The actual values are defined in section
> 3.2 and include only values 0-6, with other values reserved for future use.
> The IANA Considerations section defines this as a 16-bit value.
>
> It might be wise to restrict this to 8-bits in the IANA considerations,
> and in section 3.2 reserve the first 8 bits of the type field, as in:
>
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>         |       0     |  Tunnel-Type  |  Info Element Length            |
>         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>         |   Info Element
>         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> While this section defines a new registry of tunnel types, and formats for
> descriptive information element about each, there seem to be no rules for
> defining new values.
>
> Also, I had trouble figuring out which portions of this document are
> defining Information Elements for use in this message, and which are
> defining something else. It would help if the description of each tunnel
> type in the list in this section had a cross reference to the section that
> defines the Information Element for that type. (But a more major
> reorganization would be better.)
>
> (5) MAJOR: Section 3.4 (CAPWAP based Alternate Tunnel):
>
> For the CAPWAP Transport Protocol Element the description mentions two
> possible values (UDP and UDP-Lite), but fails to state what encoding is
> used to designate them.
>
> (6) MAJOR: Section 3.6 (GRE based Alternate Tunnel):
>
> Based on section 3.2, I was expecting the definition of *one* information
> element format for GRE tunnels. But this section says "The information
> element*s* needed for supporting this mode are defined in Section 3.7 and
> Section 3.7.6." and proceeds to define more than one. And referencing both
> 3.7 and 3.7.6 seems at least odd. I suspect the reference to 3.7.6 is a
> mistake because there seems nothing special about it.
>
> (7) MAJOR: Section 3.7 (Alternate Tunnel Information Elements):
>
> It appears that sections 3.7.n define sub-elements of an overall GRE
> Information Element, but I find no definition of that overall element.
>
> (8) MINOR: Section 3.7.1 (Access Router Information Elements):
>
> This says: "The AR information may be IPv4 address, IPv6 address, or AR
> domain name." Then it has subsections defining IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. But
> I can find nothing that says how to specify a domain name.
>
> (9) MAJOR: Section 3.7.1.1 (AR IPv4 List Element):
>
> This section seems to call for a constant value designating "AR IPv4
> Element Type" but I find no specification of what that value might be.
>
> (10) MAJOR: Section 3.7.1.2 (AR IPv6 List Element):
>
> This section seems to call for a constant value designating "AR IPv6
> Element Type" but I find no specification of what that value might be.
>
> (11) MAJOR: Section 3.7.2 (IEEE 802.11 WLAN Configuration Response):
>
> I thought this section should be defining part of the Information Element
> for the Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation Type message element from the AC to
> the WTP. Yet this section says that it is intended to be sent from the WTP
> the the AC. This left me scratching my head as to what it is and where it
> goes.
>
> (12) MAJOR: Section 3.7.3 (Tunnel DTLS Policy Element):
>
> I don't understand where this element is intended to be inserted.
>
> The title of this section is "Tunnel DTLS Policy Element", but in figure
> 13 the type field is called "Tunnel DTLS Element Type". Why are these
> different? Also, I find no defined numeric value for this field.
>
> (13) MAJOR: Section 3.7.4 (IEEE 802.11 Tagging Mode Policy Element):
>
> This references the 802.11 Tagging Mode Policy in RFC5416. But I was
> unable to decipher how that relates to the Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation
> Type message.
>
> (14) MINOR: Section 4 (IANA Considerations):
>
> This asks IANA to create a new registry of Alternate tunnel types. The
> only values in the registry for each type are the numeric value, a human
> friendly name, and a reference. The references are to the definitions of
> the underlying tunnel protocols.
>
> I understand, this isn't sufficient information to use these values. It is
> also necessary to know the format of the associated Information Element for
> each type. For *some* of the types that information is present in this
> document. For others that information is left for future definition,
> presumably in some new document.
>
> The registry needs to have a reference to a document specifying the format
> of the Information Element for the type.
>
> Also, it would be very helpful if there was a template for how to specify
> the Information Element for a type, and for this document to follow that
> format for the ones it defines.
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf