[GSMP] RE: [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs]
avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se> Thu, 10 October 2002 07:11 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24259 for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9A7D8B22930 for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:13:08 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9A7D8v22927 for <gsmp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:13:08 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24247 for <gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9A7CMv22905; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:12:22 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9A7BFv22867 for <gsmp@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:11:15 -0400
Received: from mf2.bredband.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24225 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sm.luth.se ([213.114.106.186]) by mf2.bredband.net with ESMTP id <20021010071305.TGXQ8373.mf2@sm.luth.se> for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:13:05 +0200
Message-ID: <3DA527EF.2010202@sm.luth.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:10:39 +0200
From: avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gsmp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [GSMP] RE: [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs]
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol <gsmp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gsmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Anderson, Todd A" <todd.a.anderson@intel.com> > > Comments and questions in-line. Mine as well. > > Todd > >> > o Requirements for the Dynamic Partitioning of Switching Elements >> > (Informational) >> > <draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt> >> > >> >are SEs only layer 2, or can a virtual router be an SE? > > Originally I think there was some "router" verbage in this draft with > the idea that this draft be inclusive of partitioning both switches and > routers. I think the requirements in this draft are equally valid for > LPM forwarding controlled by a protocol such as ForCES. However, there > may be requirements for forwarding devices that are not listed in this > draft since they weren't necessary for the task at hand, namely > partitioning of switches for GSMP. At some point, groups like ForCES > and PPVPN should take a look at this draft/RFC and propose any changes > they feel are necessary to support LPM-based forwarding devices. Perhaps a statement similar to this should be should be put in the beginning of the document somewhere. > > Most likely, the only effected requirement will be requirement #3 which > states that the partitioning protocol be able to partition resources > used by GSMP switches. There are other resources commonly found on > media gateways and in routers that wouldn't be included in this > requirement. > Is there any value in generalizing the requirement a little? One thing that concerns me is that should we decide to suggest GSMP as a solution to ForCES, something I am thinking about, it would require additions to these requirements. Now, while we cannot require those yet, it might be reasonable to add a requirement that all future additions to the protocol will need to include support for their particular partitioning requirements. >> >microsoftisms in the text > > Egad, I've been brainwashed! Tell me what they are and I will > remove them. I think I found 4 instances: partition's twice on page 2 controller's on page 4 PM's on page 5 [ note: I can't believe i missed them when I reviewed it during last call. Teaches me I must print drafts I intend to review and not just try and do it quickly on the screen. Speaking of WG last calls - how are folks doing with http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-03.txt ?] BTW while we are being typographical there are also references to [GSMPv3] that should be changed to [RFC3292] > >> >in intro para 2, the enumeration omits the case where a single >> >logical SE or controller might be implemented by multiple devices > > The picture on page 4 indicates that multiple logical controllers can > be attached to a single partition. You could call this combination > of controllers itself a logical controller if you wanted to. Likewise, > a logical SE could be something like the combination of two partitions > of two different physical SEs. > > I have no objection to adding such examples to the draft. However, I > think the draft as it is does not preclude someone from doing either > of the aforementioned aproaches. I think that adding some of the more extreme examples is a good idea. > >> > Dynamic Partitioning >> > >> > Static repartitioning of a SE can be a costly and inefficient >> > process. First, before static repartitioning can take place, all >> > existing connections with controllers must be severed. When this >> > happens, the SE will typically release all the state >> configured by >> > the controller. >> > >> >you might make clear that one or more static partitions of the SE >> >may not be affected by the change(s) and hence would not be >> >disturbed. e.g. one could have an SE with O(10^3) partitions and >> >only be mucking with a few. > > Suggest a change to the following wording: > > "Static repartitioning of a SE can be a costly and inefficient > process. First, before static repartitioning can take place, all > existing connections with controllers FOR THE EFFECTED PARTITIONS > must be severed." I think it is Affected Partitions > >> >as requirement three allows starvation, this needs to be mentioned >> >in sec cons > > "3. Furthermore, this mechanism MUST support the partitioning of all > resources discoverable through GSMP (e.g., label tables). Other resources > used by GSMP indirectly (e.g., CPU) or resources (e.g., forwarding table > entries) used by other types of SEs MAY be supported." > > This requirement allows starvation? If so, how? I'm not seeing it. I don't think this one does, but Req. 4 does. Though I think this is covered by the requirements for authentication etc. ot eh PM. but it might be worth mentioning in the security section that this is a possible problem that the authentication is meant to cover. > >> >sec cons says >> > >> > Only authorized PMs MUST be allowed to dynamically repartition a >> > SE >> > >> >etc. but there is no hint of security relationships. are SEs >> >statically bound to PMs and vice verse? > > This issue was never specifically discussed but based on our > discussions I infer that we believed that the relationship could be > dynamic and configurable based on the preferences of the owner of > the resources. The SE could be configured to know its PM through > a console (physical security) or via an existing, secure configuration > protocol...take your pick. > > There might be a potential requirement here when a SE is assigned to > a knew PM...does the SE forget all of its state or maintain its state? > If it maintains the state then how is the new PM to discover how the > device is currently partitioned? > While we don't necessarily need to solve this now, it might be good to explore the problem and to add a requirement on the need to establish a secure process for PM discovery and binding. >> >what are the implications of a requirements document having ipr? > > I don't believe any of the authors intended to claim IPR so if that > is implied in the draft then we can just excise that part. Good idea. Thanks for the comments. To the List: Any other comments? Please get them in as soon as possible. To the editors: How soon can we get a revision. While none of these changes are seriously technical, I believe they are sufficiently substantive to warrant another WG last call. Once the new draft is released, I plan to schedule a 1 week last call on the changes. a. > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ GSMP mailing list GSMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
- [GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn… avri doria
- RE: [GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp… Anderson, Todd A
- [GSMP] RE: [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp… avri doria