[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 26 October 2016 21:08 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 82C41129400 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 cK2hkgxX3q1h for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6545B12944B for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id zVQobmfGC1XXBzVQrbASjg; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 21:08:21 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([73.186.127.100]) by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id zVQqbskz3JnDszVQrbkuGs; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 21:08:21 +0000
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <e92e33c0-a233-45cf-7b72-a1b76dfcf469@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:08:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDMmC7hSVNla7WYXtXglWvlOqqefGB83DlJYrGoK17lWxD5oolvkJ1O9WZA9TTqtk5juRzvJWYRx8p9r4bVi+aVn7A6stVnFJ/yFy9iZuw5LWN1mMIsV bwBimUrzfriWLxIUqkIhUrnKGwXNlSqAfOnbUEzM9WdozRrBLW3r0XEDtPQ2viVjlsZgpliZo/1eAbKwbo+b6wb5hqL4M4w0JL7/8d/0juw0MT63Eev+THo2 NAXL2vaKDlvASyDb68SNEg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ozAHgpPyv7EhqsfmBx9kFTnyjpw>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call 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, 26 Oct 2016 21:08:23 -0000
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-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. 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? (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. (3) MINOR: Section 5: The 2nd paragraph uses "recommended" (non-normative) while the subsequent paragraphs used "RECOMMENDED" (normative). Is this intentional?
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Paul Kyzivat