Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-03

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 03 April 2018 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778D71270A3; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9WkFvfabNh7S; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (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 0C2871200FC; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id h143-v6so21458670ita.4; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 21:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4eYeR8OcCSLopcvEGey/6MV7IHTq+0DrxzRXn1bvtGc=; b=EtzQ/+Lx59fjdC0tRaK6nQcxqFyuvM45c5Pok2RkcOsTZG/gcVRcL6SR9ZNUU3HnzI tajrN3+cE/vrYIFcYu4yQQZgXbThfd2+Wss53cMdQfIoPKTpIAckU1bLhBuvDSzjLJ8e ilFHiEXMCrYIjSOl5Djz2ydE63juqeCX4D1y78NNQh4Uz3W8/9gBri4WG8pN0RnOZgyF CUtKP1epDB7WOEGOFWZ23Sdnhd4KHJJnljiwvUtmTlgTtb3qIq8m5CU8xdjJ+T5sDs9L ObCeJnpN6I031RGUhgV22Zae/Y+/HRYcj3jw5yrH9kVQsj2dyDDbyspT6/v4sAuX5qRu VPEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4eYeR8OcCSLopcvEGey/6MV7IHTq+0DrxzRXn1bvtGc=; b=n064jkaz5gy9FVjxMjvqIpih+fbLMGzFlSu33ryhrEpwBMoSX3evkeqrL8TK7Mb1iC mOPi9UN6/iDj4a2uLgOFOZxGXjEJW4UritR30apFUNIBiJ0xP2XRRvhqxCyWNckI5RV4 aM+B+8VsJpZH6ege7MIvs4MddwboROWoH152Qv0xuh8TY6WKuRlncHZCf5t1Cw8AdGO4 c9x2c8K0Rh+QZiRQbGVKNNjGcwrOoO+0/Vh9u/aoi2ThEvdkwDlX6glKN2E9TAf33wTf slpDeEnXxaw34QSZXyWAwVWyUJSCLx2c1cRdYWnZPYD1xe5UAtKcOYgNc3h03xKLujou dVlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FXOl2r8dV6wEF5xk+FiYRfei1h9qsPEaaI6sdcYMoq+BY9Kdb+ O5KTJAwGgQBjUzLlLS51WKSm0wq7zHs0dEm7oNQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+AMPpaiwwTY4+07Ccwd3lstTsea9xyOjKwH8uo1BRh3GF6Xa8JsD928bv+LHl0suEGkf7YlARjxkeRw9grN4I=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:df04:: with SMTP id r4-v6mr3475845itg.105.1522728715906; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 21:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <74FFA21E-B80B-4DA4-B83D-A8D5F58AC8D3@juniper.net>
References: <F78B2461-A433-41FF-8997-4AEE8B0BE1A7@juniper.net> <74FFA21E-B80B-4DA4-B83D-A8D5F58AC8D3@juniper.net>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:11:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHx5zWCGx2EEJeQYDArpXA2fDMqb0+H1TSOo22jcuKDAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill@ietf.org, trill IETF mailing list <trill@ietf.org>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cf37VHbx4dltflRpTsCdt4G59sE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-03
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 04:11:59 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for these comments, See below.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This WGLC collected exactly one expression of support other than from
> co-authors, from zhuangyan.zhuang@huawei.com. I'm afraid we don't have
> consensus to progress the document right now, or evidence that the document
> has received much in the way of review.
>
> I do note several problems that will need to be resolved:
>
> 1. There are six front-page authors. There should be five or fewer, see the
> final bullet of
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Checklist%20for%20writing%20a%20BGP-related%20draft

OK.

> 2. The IANA section has
>
>    IANA is requested to assign one Node Flag bit for "Layer 3 Gateway"
>    from the BGP-LS registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs.
>
> however, the registry BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
> Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs actually has no provision for registering new
> flag bits. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-3.3.1.1 simply lists
> them as "Reserved for future use". Possibly address this by requesting IANA
> to create the registry within the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
> (BGP-LS) Parameters" and allocate your bit from there. You would also have
> to make your draft update RFC 7752. I've cc'd Adrian and Hannes, the
> Designated Experts for that group of registries, in case they have further
> comment.

Creating a registry in this document seems like the appropriate course
of action.

> 3. Not precisely a problem, but are there implementations of the draft? As
> you know, if there aren't, by IDR WG convention we will stall until we do
> have some, even if we do complete a WGLC.

I am not aware of any right now.

> 4. I'd kind of prefer you remove tables 1 and 2. They aren't authoritative
> and table 1 is actually obsolete.

OK.

> 5. Section 3.3.1.1 has
>
>            +----------+----------------------------+-----------+
>            | Bit      |          Description       | Reference |
>            +----------+----------------------------+-----------+
>            | 'G'      | Layer 3 Gateway Bit        | [RFC7176] |
>            | Reserved | Reserved for future use    |           |
>            +----------+----------------------------+-----------+
>
> I think the reference must be wrong. RFC 7176 ("Transparent Interconnection
> of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS") doesn't include the string "gateway"
> at all, so if the ref is correct, it's at best obscure.
>
> But in any case, per #2 above, probably this is not the right table in the
> right place.

I'll see what I can do to improve this.

> 6. I have read section 3.3.1.2 several times and don't understand it. Other
> than "what does it mean?" I wonder what the intent of table 6 is. It kind of
> resembles the table in section 5.2 of RFC 7176? I'm confused.

I think Section 3.3.1.2 is enumerating TRILL link state information
that can be transported in BGP-LS using the opaque node attribute TLV
as of some point in time (perhaps when the -00 draft was created).
However, additional possible TRILL link state information has been
specified since [RFC7176]. In any case, I think this subsection should
be recast in a more general way and the Table 6 should probably be
eliminated.

> 7. Is this a typo?
>
>    o  Does any fixed length TLV correspond to the TLV Length field in
>       this document ?
>
> Do you mean "every"?

I believe it should be "every".

> 8. In this:
>
>          opaque TLV support the range of ISIS-TLV/SUB-TLV shown in Table
>             3,  and link TLVs support the range in Figure 8.
>
> there is no figure 8 in the document.

I think it is just trying to say that you check that items of link
state information are inside the right envelope; but, it is not very
clear and refers to Figure 8 when it probably means Table 7. I'll try
to improve it.

> 9. I don't know if the security section will fly, but then again I don't
> know if it won't. Once the doc is revised to address the above I'll ask the
> Sec Dir for a review.

OK.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Thanks,
>
> --John
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 3:33 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> An IDR working group last call has been requested for
> draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-03. Please reply to the list with your comments. As
> usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group.
> Please get your comments in before November 3, 2017.
>
> Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dls-2Dtrill-2D03&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=YQIHKfaMAUOrl3hLdgq6nw1PcXtmtpICF3XlGCVFreQ&s=6fwhGLRqq-HwpYC9ZJyaR60B_kl8F-1BV0Gd5B7XPl8&e=
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=YQIHKfaMAUOrl3hLdgq6nw1PcXtmtpICF3XlGCVFreQ&s=1Hl0Amflm0UF1PXY9sJgdlNF1i0jXiSk9xReayA2hF0&e=
>
>