Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 02 November 2016 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 8FC881294D7; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JPb9oEgmHjvi; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992B11294C0; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66D32CEEA; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:25:24 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iUySZhoChs0t; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:25:24 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282A92CED1; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:25:24 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3A4C9CD-ADF4-4CA9-95B5-47FC3BE216B4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <CE66761C-7B0D-4510-8F23-51AD7D60DE48@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:25:23 +0200
Message-Id: <4E260A0C-6709-4D32-A099-6CCDFDB6872A@piuha.net>
References: <9ddc9b06-364b-8cf1-ae77-41931b7894b3@alum.mit.edu> <CE66761C-7B0D-4510-8F23-51AD7D60DE48@cisco.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/l624nCYP-9LSHrfhH_nq9Wt3c9U>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07
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: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:25:27 -0000

Thanks for the review, Paul. I expect to see a document change to address the issues.

Jari

On 01 Nov 2016, at 15:44, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the review, Paul!
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Please find some comments inline.
> 
> Carlos, as shepherd.
> 
>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 10:20 PM, 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-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07
>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>> Review Date: 2016-10-26
>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-28
>> IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
>> 
>> (Note: The draft is unchanged since Last Call, as is this review.)
>> 
>> Issues:
>> 
>> Major: 0
>> Minor: 3
>> Nits:  0
>> 
>> (1) MINOR: General comment
>> 
>> As best I can understand, this draft provides a new alternative approach tunneling Ethernet over IPv6, that differs from L2TPv3 over IP in two key ways:
>> 
>> - it uniquely associates a tunnel with an IPv6 address, simplifying routing of arriving packets
>> 
>> - it does not use the L2TPv3 control plane, instead relying upon coordinated consistent configuration of the two ends of the tunnel.
>> 
>> As best I can tell, these two choices are independent of one another.
>> 
>> IMO this draft would be improved with a substantial discussion of why this new approach to tunneling, using these two features, is being offered as an alternative. This is mentioned very slightly in Section 1, but seems incomplete. What are the cons as well as the pros, and under what circumstances will the pros outweigh the cons?
>> 
> 
> I agree with this. Some text explaining when you would prefer this approach, and when not, would help.
> 
>> (2) MINOR: Section 3:
>> 
>> There is no explanation of why 64-bit cookies are chosen and required. Is this because there is no mechanism for negotiation, so a fixed size is needed to define the packet format? Since coordinated configuration of the two ends is required wouldn't it be possible to allow the consistent configuration of the cookie size? Better explanation would be helpful.
>> 
> 
> This is related to Mirja’s comment as well, and some clarity will improve the doc.
> 
>> (3) MINOR: Section 5:
>> 
>> The 2nd paragraph uses "recommended" (non-normative) while the subsequent paragraphs used "RECOMMENDED" (normative). Is this intentional?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> — Carlos.
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art