Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Two responses below.

Russ


> On Jul 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, David Allan I <david.i.allan=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ:
> 
> FWIW I'll echo agreement with Donald here and also express thanks. I would share his concern about depending on a constant URL structure.
> 
> Cheers
> D
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 8:07 PM
> To: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] Review Team <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> Thanks for the review. See my responses as one co-author below.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:33 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>> 
>> 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 treat these comments just like 
>> any other last call comments.
>> 
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at 
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review Date: 2020-07-03
>> IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-27
>> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
>> 
>> 
>> Summary: Almost Ready
>> 
>> Major Concerns:
>> 
>> Section 2 says:
>> 
>>   PPPoE data packet encapsulation is indicated in an IEEE 802[8]
>>   Ethernet frame by an Ethertype of 0x8864.
>> 
>> This is very odd way to introduce this section.  IEEE Std 802-2001 
>> covers the architecture for Project 802, not just Ethernet frames, 
>> which are fully specified in IEEE 802.3.  However, the MAC frame, MAC 
>> addresses, and Ethertypes are all described in this standard.
>> Second, you need to point to RFC 2516 to talk about PPPoE.  Third, the 
>> Ethertype is not defined in IEEE Std 802-2001.  I suggest:
>> 
>>   The Ethernet payload [8] for PPPoE [3] is indicated by an
>>   Ethertype of 0x8864.
> 
> I'd be fine with that change. (I hope we don't refer to 802.3, last time I looked that document was well over 20,000 pages everything of relevance is in 802.)
> 
>> References:  I think that [9] needs to be a normative reference 
>> because the reader cannot understand the QFI field without it.
> 
> OK with me.
> 
>> Minor Concerns:
>> 
>> Introduction: You spell out the meaning of 5G, but not BBF.  Please 
>> spell out BBF.  I note that 5G is on the RFC Editor "well known"
>> list 
>> (https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c7043a1d-99a4f858-c7047a86-86b5
>> 68293eb5-c84fc54a0ea60a7c&q=1&e=3bf3375d-077c-4030-87f7-c12d7d44797e&u
>> =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fmaterials%2Fabbrev.expansion.txt), but BBF is not, so it would be fine to not spell out 5G. Likewise, please spell out p2p, PPPoE, IPoE, DSLAMs, and OLTs the first time the term is used.
>> 
>> Please explain the UE in the Introduction so that it is understood by 
>> the time it is used later.
> 
> I think most standards documents use too many acronyms and I do not think the RFC Editor "well known" list authoritatively describes the state of knowledge of every RFC reader. So I'm fine with spelling out more things but would prefer not to drop any existing spelling outs.
> 
>> Please use the exact wording from RFC 8174 in the boilerplate:
>> 
>>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>>   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
>>   "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
>>   described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
>>   appear in all capitals, as shown here.
>> 
>> I assume that it is okay to use "[1] [2]" instead of "[RFC2119] 
>> [RFC8174]", but this is not the tradition.
>> 
>> Section 2: Please add a reference for the IANA registry.  I think you 
>> are pointing to here:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ppp-numbers/ppp-numbers.xhtml#ppp-num
>> bers-2
> 
> Is IANA's URL structure and URL embedded nomenclature guaranteed to be constant? The draft gives the precise name of the IANA registries web page referenced: "Point-to-Point (PPP) Protocol Field Assignments". I see no need to include a URL. I put through a number of drafts and IANA has never asked me to add a URL to an IANA web page or registry to one of those drafts.

You can do it in such a way that the RFC Editor drops the pointer from the final document, but the URL makes it absolutely clear to IANA which registry is being updated.

> 
>> Section 5: Please add pointers to the registry that is to be updated.
>> I think you are pointing here:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xht
>> ml#ieee-802-numbers-1
> 
> Same comment here.

Me too.

> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>> Abstract: I suggest that the Abstract say what is provided instead of 
>> the needs of 5G.  It is also shorter.  I suggest:
>> 
>>   As part of providing wireline access to the 5G Core (5GC), deployed
>>   wireline networks carry user data between 5G residential gateways
>>   and the 5G Access Gateway Function (AGF). The encapsulation method
>>   specified in this document supports the multiplexing of traffic for
>>   multiple PDU sessions within a VLAN delineated access circuit,
>>   permits legacy equipment in the data path to snoop certain packet
>>   fields, carries 5G QoS information associated with the packet data,
>>   and provides efficient encoding.
> 
> That looks OK to me.
> 
>> Section 4: s/document"s/document's/
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA  [e-mail]
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call