RE: [Softwires] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Qi,

> I'm feeling it's not necessary for such a specification to reference the YANG
> model document. The current lw4o6 specification does work without this
> management YANG model doc. I think the OA&M should be out of the scope for
> this protocol specification. And, I checked the RFC6333, where no such pointer
> exists.

Well, the lw4o6 specification results in significant operational change from the
current DS-Lite, so that does raise the question of how to manage lw4o6.

That said, I characterized this as a minor issue, and regard such a reference
as helpful, but not essential.  I'm suggesting an informative reference, not
normative - a sentence observing that the YANG model exists would suffice
(I see no need for a "MUST" or "SHOULD" requirement for YANG in this draft).

> Is such a reference required by the OPS-Dir review?

Whether adding an informative mention of the YANG model rises to the level of
"required" would be up to the OPS ADs.  It may help implementers find the YANG
model, which could be useful.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qi Sun [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:20 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; sunqiong;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Yiu Lee; [e-mail]; ops-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-softwire-
> lw4over6-10
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> The comments and updates do help to get lw4o6 specification clearer. Thanks!
> 
> But I have some thoughts about the following (minor) issue:
> 
> >>> Minor issues (7):
> >>>
> >>> [3] The lack of discussion of management information is an
> >>> omission.  See A.2.2 below in the OPS-Dir review section of this email
> >>> and the discussion in Section 3.2 of RFC 5706.  A sentence pointing
> >>> at an applicable MIB and/or YANG draft or drafts would suffice.
> >>
> >> [if] There is a draft for a softwire YANG model which is due to be
> >> published shortly. We'll add an informative reference to this.
> 
> I'm feeling it's not necessary for such a specification to reference the YANG
> model document. The current lw4o6 specification does work without this
> management YANG model doc. I think the OA&M should be out of the scope for
> this protocol specification. And, I checked the RFC6333, where no such pointer
> exists.
> 
> Is such a reference required by the OPS-Dir review?
> 
> Thanks,
> Qi
> 
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:27 AM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > Many thanks for the comprehensive response - I've extracted [1], [2]
> > and [7] for further attention here - your proposals for all of the
> > other items and nits are fine with me.
> >
> > I think the only open topic is [7], and I can live w/your proposed
> > rephrasing for that even though I'd like to see a sentence of
> > rationale added.
> >
> >>> [1] There are a number of places where SHOULD is used to refer to
> >>> requirements in another RFC, e.g., the following text in section 5.1:
> >
> > [... snip ...]
> >
> >> [if] OK with the above proposals.
> >
> > I supplied new text for 5.1 - please also make the corresponding changes
> > in 5.2.1 (twice) and 8.2, plus check whether this "SHOULD" problem
> > occurs elsewhere.
> >
> >>> [2] Section 4.  Lightweight 4over6 Architecture
> >>>
> >>>  The consequence of this architecture is that the information
> >>>  maintained by the provisioning mechanism and the one maintained by
> >>>  the lwAFTR MUST be synchronized (See figure 2).  The details of this
> >>>  synchronization depend on the exact provisioning mechanism and will
> >>>  be discussed in a companion document.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this "companion document" needs to be cited as a
> >>> normative reference.  The above text's vague allusion to the specification
> >>> of how to implement a "MUST" requirement is insufficient.
> >>
> >> [if] The synch mechanism is really down to how an operator has deployed
> >> the service, the specific provisioning protocols in use etc. What about
> >> the following wording change?:
> >>
> >> The consequence of this architecture is that the information maintained by
> >> the provisioning mechanism and the one maintained by the lwAFTR MUST be
> >> synchronized (See figure 2).  The details of this synchronization depend
> >> on the exact provisioning mechanism and protocols that are in use by the
> >> operator. If no automated process for this synchronisation is in use, then
> >> information in the provisioning systems and the lwAFTR MUST be
> >> synchronised manually, e.g. by copying aligned configuration files to each
> >> of the elements.
> >
> > That wording change is fine, and I prefer it to Ted's subsequent suggestion
> > of shorter "out of scope" language.
> >
> > My primary concern was the reference to a "companion document" which lead
> > to an obvious "where is that???" question.  The new wording removes that
> > reference and provides some useful information on how the required
> > synchronization could be accomplished.
> >
> >>> [7] Also in Section 5.1
> >>>
> >>>  Unless an lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is
> >>>  RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the well-known ports (0-1023) are
> >>>  not allocated to lwB4s.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain why.  Also, "well-known ports" is not the right term;
> >>> I believe those are the "system ports", e.g., see:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-p
> >>> ort-numbers.xhtml
> >>
> >> [if] Reworded:
> >>
> >> Unless an lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is
> >>   RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the system ports (0-1023) are
> >>   not allocated to lwB4s.
> >
> > Why?  Please add a sentence to explain, although I'll be ok if all that
> > is done is the rewording.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:06 PM
> >> To: Black, David; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> gen-
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> Many thanks for the review. Please see comments inline.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/10/2014 00:30, "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is a combined Gen-ART and OPS-DIR review.  Boilerplate for both
> >>> follows,
> >>> and I apologize for it being a day late - United Airlines got me back to
> >>> Boston after midnight last night on a plane w/o working WiFi.
> >>>
> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at:
> >>>
> >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>>
> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive.
> >>>
> >>> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> ongoing
> >>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments
> >>> were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.
> >>> Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any
> other
> >>> last call comments.
> >>>
> >>> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10
> >>> Reviewer: David Black
> >>> Review Date: October 10, 2014
> >>> IETF LC End Date: October 10, 2014
> >>> IESG Telechat date: October 16, 2014
> >>>
> >>> Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues
> >>> 		described in the review.
> >>>
> >>> This draft describes an extension to Dual-Stack Lite that relocates the
> NAPT
> >>> functionality from the centralized tunnel concentrator to the DS-Lite
> client
> >>> - doing so has significant scalability benefits.  The draft is generally
> >>> readable although understanding why some of the processing needs to be
> done
> >>> in the manner specified requires strong familiarity with both DS-Lite and
> NAPT.
> >>>
> >>> The draft is generally in good shape - I found three issues that I
> consider
> >>> to be significant, the most important of which are sloppiness in use of
> >>> RFC 2119 keywords, particularly in Section 5.1, and omission of what
> >>> appears to be a necessary normative reference.
> >>>
> >>> Major issues (2):
> >>>
> >>> [1] There are a number of places where SHOULD is used to refer to
> requirement
> >>> in another RFC, e.g., the following text in section 5.1:
> >>>
> >>>  The DNS considerations described in Section 5.5 and Section 6.4 of
> >>>  [RFC6333] SHOULD be followed.
> >>>
> >>> This has the side effect of weakening any MUST requirement in the
> referenced
> >>> RFC(s) to a SHOULD, which was probably not intended, and needs to be
> explicitly
> >>> stated if it was intended.  Here's a possible rephrasing:
> >>>
> >>>  The DNS considerations described in Section 5.5 and Section 6.4 of
> >>>  [RFC6333] apply to Lightweight 4over6; lw4o6 implementations MUST
> >>>  comply with all requirements stated there.
> >>>
> >>> The additional places where this occurs are:
> >>>
> >>> - Section 5.2.1 (twice):
> >>>
> >>>  For TCP and UDP traffic the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 SHOULD
> >>>  conform with the behaviour and best current practices documented in
> >>>  [RFC4787], [RFC5508], and [RFC5382].  If the lwB4 supports DCCP, then
> >>>  the requirements in [RFC5597] SHOULD be implemented.
> >>>
> >>> - Section 8.2:
> >>>
> >>>  The lwB4 SHOULD implement the requirements defined in [RFC5508] for
> >>>  ICMP forwarding.
> >>
> >> [if] OK with the above proposals.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [2] Section 4.  Lightweight 4over6 Architecture
> >>>
> >>>  The consequence of this architecture is that the information
> >>>  maintained by the provisioning mechanism and the one maintained by
> >>>  the lwAFTR MUST be synchronized (See figure 2).  The details of this
> >>>  synchronization depend on the exact provisioning mechanism and will
> >>>  be discussed in a companion document.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this "companion document" needs to be cited as a
> >>> normative reference.  The above text's vague allusion to the specification
> >>> of how to implement a "MUST" requirement is insufficient.
> >>
> >> [if] The synch mechanism is really down to how an operator has deployed
> >> the service, the specific provisioning protocols in use etc. What about
> >> the following wording change?:
> >>
> >> The consequence of this architecture is that the information maintained by
> >> the provisioning mechanism and the one maintained by the lwAFTR MUST be
> >> synchronized (See figure 2).  The details of this synchronization depend
> >> on the exact provisioning mechanism and protocols that are in use by the
> >> operator. If no automated process for this synchronisation is in use, then
> >> information in the provisioning systems and the lwAFTR MUST be
> >> synchronised manually, e.g. by copying aligned configuration files to each
> >> of the elements.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Minor issues (7):
> >>>
> >>> [3] The lack of discussion of management information is an
> >>> omission.  See A.2.2 below in the OPS-Dir review section of this email
> >>> and the discussion in Section 3.2 of RFC 5706.  A sentence pointing
> >>> at an applicable MIB and/or YANG draft or drafts would suffice.
> >>
> >> [if] There is a draft for a softwire YANG model which is due to be
> >> published shortly. We'll add an informative reference to this.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [4] Section 4.  Lightweight 4over6 Architecture
> >>>
> >>>  The solution specified in this document allows the assignment of
> >>>  either a full or a shared IPv4 address requesting CPEs.  [RFC7040]
> >>>  provides a mechanism for assigning a full IPv4 address only.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain what entities would share the IPv4 address.  For example,
> >>> this is needed as a foundation for the statement in Section 8 that
> >>> "ICMPv4 does not work in an address sharing environment without
> >>> special handling [RFC6269]."
> >>
> >> [if] OK. Reworded version:
> >>
> >> The solution specified in this document allows the assignment of
> >>   either a full IPv4 address for a CPE, or a single IPv4 address which is
> >> shared between multiple CPEs.  [RFC7040]
> >>   provides a mechanism for assigning a full IPv4 address only.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [5] Section 5.1.  Lightweight B4 Provisioning with DHCPv6
> >>>
> >>>  For DHCPv6 based configuration of these parameters, the lwB4 SHOULD
> >>>  implement OPTION_S46_CONT_LW
> >>>
> >>> What are the consequences of not doing that?  The could be addressed
> >>> by changing that "SHOULD" to a "MUST", although I suspect that what's
> >>> wanted here is a forward reference to the alternatives discussed in
> >>> Section 7.
> >>
> >> [if] Rewording with:
> >>
> >> To configure these parameters using DHCPv6, the lwB4 MUST implement
> >> OPTION_S46_CONT_LW.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [6] Also in Section 5.1
> >>>
> >>>  If stateful IPv4 configuration or additional IPv4 configuration
> >>>  information is required, DHCPv4 [RFC2131] must be used.
> >>>
> >>> "must" -> "MUST"
> >>>
> >>>  In the event that the lwB4's encapsulation source address is changed
> >>>  for any reason (such as the DHCPv6 lease expiring), the lwB4's
> >>>  dynamic provisioning process must be re-initiated.
> >>>
> >>> "must" -> "MUST"
> >>
> >> [if] OK
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [7] Also in Section 5.1
> >>>
> >>>  Unless an lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is
> >>>  RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the well-known ports (0-1023) are
> >>>  not allocated to lwB4s.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain why.  Also, "well-known ports" is not the right term;
> >>> I believe those are the "system ports", e.g., see:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-p
> >>> ort-numbers.xhtml
> >>
> >> [if] Reworded:
> >>
> >> Unless an lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is
> >>   RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the system ports (0-1023) are
> >>   not allocated to lwB4s.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [8] Still in Section 5.1
> >>>
> >>>  In the event that the lwB4 receives an ICMPv6 error message (type 1,
> >>>  code 5) originating from the lwAFTR, the lwB4 SHOULD interpret this
> >>>  to mean that no matching entry in the lwAFTR's binding table has been
> >>>  found.  The lwB4 MAY then re-initiate the dynamic port-restricted
> >>>  provisioning process.  The lwB4's re-initiation policy SHOULD be
> >>>  configurable.
> >>>
> >>> What happens if the lwB4 ignores the first "SHOULD"?
> >>
> >>
> >> [if] Reword:
> >> ...the lwB4 interprets this to mean that no matching entry in the lwAFTR's
> >> binding table has been found, so the IPv4 payload is not being forwarded
> >> by the lwAFTR.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [9] Section 8.1.  ICMPv4 Processing by the lwAFTR
> >>>
> >>> This describes two approaches to ICMPv4 processing.  Are there any others?
> >>> If so, please add some text about them, otherwise, I suggest this change:
> >>>
> >>> OLD
> >>>  Additionally, the lwAFTR MAY implement:
> >>>
> >>>  o  Discarding of all inbound ICMP messages.
> >>> NEW
> >>>  Otherwise the lwAFTR MUST discard all inbound ICMPv4 messages.
> >>
> >> [if] OK
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>>
> >>> -- Section 1.  Introduction
> >>>
> >>>  Basic Bridging BroadBand element: A B4 element is a function
> >>>                                    implemented on a dual-stack capable
> >>>                                    node, either a directly connected
> >>>                                    device or a CPE, that creates a
> >>>                                    tunnel to an AFTR.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest changing "a tunnel to an AFTR" to "an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel
> >>> to an AFTR" for consistency with the AFTR definition.
> >>
> >> [if] OK
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -- Section 5.2.  Lightweight B4 Data Plane Behavior
> >>>
> >>>  Internally connected hosts source IPv4 packets with an [RFC1918]
> >>>  address.
> >>
> >> [if] Reword with:
> >>
> >> Hosts connected to the customer's network behind the lwB4 source IPv4
> >> packets with an [RFC1918] address.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Internal to what?  Please explain.
> >>>
> >>> -- Section 6.2.  lwAFTR Data Plane Behavior
> >>>
> >>>  The lwAFTR MUST support hairpinning of traffic between two lwB4s, by
> >>>  performing de-capsulation and re-encapsulation of packets.  The
> >>>  hairpinning policy MUST be configurable.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain "hairpinning" - it should suffice to add "from one lwB4
> >>> that need to be sent to another lwB4 associated with the same AFTR"
> >>> after "de-capsulation and re-encapsulation of packets".
> >>
> >> [if] OK with the suggested wording.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -- Section 7.  Additional IPv4 address and Port Set Provisioning
> >>> Mechanisms
> >>>
> >>>  In a Lightweight 4over6 domain, the binding information MUST be
> >>>  aligned between the lwB4s, the lwAFTRs and the provisioning server.
> >>>
> >>> "aligned between" -> "synchronized across" for consistency with use
> >>> of forms of "synchronize" elsewhere in this draft.
> >>
> >> [if] OK
> >>
> >>>
> >>> idnits found a few things to complain about:
> >>>
> >>> - The use of "the well-known range 192.0.0.0/29" in Section 5.1.  This is
> >>> ok,
> >>> 	as it's describing DS-Lite use of that range that is documented
> >>> 	elsewhere.  If lw4o6 is using that range, an explanation ought to be
> >>> 	added to Section 5.1.
> >>
> >> [if] lw4o6 doesn¹t use these
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - Three references have been updated:
> >>>
> >>> == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
> >>>    draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
> >>>
> >>> == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 has been
> >>> published
> >>>    as RFC 7341
> >>>
> >>> == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
> >>>    draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-05
> >>
> >> [if] All should now be fixed in v11 (posted earlier today)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --- Selected RFC 5706 Appendix A Q&A for OPS-Dir review ---
> >>>
> >>> A.1.1.  Has deployment been discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	Yes, this protocol is intended to improve scalability over the existing
> >>> 	DS-Lite mechanism.
> >>>
> >>> A.1.2.  Has installation and initial setup been discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	No, there are vague references to a provisioning mechanism and
> >>> 	synchronization functionality that need to be set up.  See
> >>> 	major open issue [2] above which calls out a missing normative
> >>> 	reference that should address these topics.
> >>>
> >>> A.1.3.  Has the migration path been discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	No, but I suspect that this concern is inapplicable, as I think
> >>> 	a carrier would not migrate from DS-Lite to lw4o6, but would
> >>> 	deploy lw4o6 instead of DS-Lite.
> >>>
> >>> A.1.4.  Have the Requirements on other protocols and functional
> >>>      components been discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	Yes, but major open issue [1] is effectively in this area.
> >>>
> >>> A.1.6.  Have suggestions for verifying correct operation been discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	No, and they probably should be, as this protocol requires state
> >>> 	synchronization among the lwB4, lwAFTR and the provisioning system,
> >>> 	and is likely to exhibit problematic behavior if the relevant state
> >>> 	information gets out of sync.
> >>>
> >>> A.1.9.  Is configuration discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	Yes, the draft does a good job of discussing what needs to be
> >>> 	configured to set up the protocol (aside from state synchronization)
> >>> 	and calling out protocol behavior aspects that should be configurable.
> >>>
> >>> A.2 Management
> >>>
> >>> 	This is really not discussed, and in particular the lack of discussion
> >>> 	of management information is notable because this protocol has a
> >>> 	different operational structure than DS-Lite.  So, specifically:
> >>>
> >>> A.2.2.  Is management information discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	No, this is minor open issue [3].  A sentence pointing to applicable
> >>> 	MIB and/or YANG draft(s) would suffice to address this.
> >>>
> >>> A.2.4.  Is configuration management discussed?
> >>>
> >>> 	Yes - the discussion is ok, even though specific configuration
> mechanisms
> >>> 	are not discussed.
> >>>
> >>> A.3.  Documentation
> >>>
> >>> 	The protocol does have significant operational impacts on the Internet.
> >>>
> >>> 	The shepherd's writeup indicates that multiple implementations exist
> >>> 	among which interoperability has been tested.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> --David
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> >>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> >>> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> >>> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires