Re: [Int-area] Document shepherd comments on 'draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05'

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 28 August 2018 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212AA130DE7 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 WkBxCupRVjJ7 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 CF135130DE6 for <Int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XyXMzmYBJ2KPWFoMbBvbBDq5SklkBRRaOyztf+Unkh0=; b=j50nm+XSUv9aBSRKEhdTzrID+ ZZFunisqu04Hcla7vfzi+7X1UCQ+04nVfjS+6xzf98Hkakhumpnzj5sJz9Jjs+QwGecvfR/pkp6AS fIPKNBRTlBNSCRD9h696JOT50kchShkDEe40UaHDcBDhsFeXIPZUeEFa/SiTn4D3FLo8HCZfoT+g9 lHHMgW+hR0d5Hxo4VszOUiUHu4r1qKl26Hr/BHUW74ONkzYWI0fAFov/FO19L8Hj8ynQ0y8z0knM5 5W5q2pa2w6to9hsJxAy0d68afBVvb2ksFpAdkYZn0vt5JiO0WXJOZSwXijbH/EhzD4TMx3pZEcM6U EngrxXjmQ==;
Received: from [::1] (port=38400 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1fugGL-001S9t-A0; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:50:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_d595708626aa5d94a3632746d5d9c24e"
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:50:37 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, int-area <Int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37z1vj19etoF979W=Xr0OpVmWMnM4RzdDWSea61AFxCHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f1cf017dec464a8c8d2cd0dc3e6d60db@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <371b25b557e3698ea4635289df7bdb0a@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37z1vj19etoF979W=Xr0OpVmWMnM4RzdDWSea61AFxCHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <673050703675161ff2731c73d1f6f2b8@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/8deYwoROqxoDs5dieZD1BkdJdRw>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Document shepherd comments on 'draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05'
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:50:43 -0000

Tom, 

Agreed, but I was suggesting both 4-in-4 and 6-in-6. It's not useful to
discuss 94 in this context. 

Joe

On 2018-08-28 08:47, Tom Herbert wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Some comments below, hopefully constructive/additive...
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> On 2018-08-24 12:34, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> As document shepherd, I am required to perform a review. Please see below
>> for initial comments, and respond on the list.
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Section by Section comments:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Section 5.4.1:
>> Second paragraph, "set 94 for IPIP", I was under the impression that the
>> common
>> values for IPIP encapsulation are '4' for IPv4 and '41' for IPv6. I have not
>> seen '94'
>> appear elsewhere. Is this a common use? If not, would it be better to use
>> '4' or '41'?
>> 
>> 94 is defined here:
>> 
>> [IDM91a] Ioannidis, J., Duchamp, D., Maguire, G., "IP-based
>> protocols for mobile internetworking", Proceedings of
>> SIGCOMM '91, ACM, September 1991.
>> 
>> See RFC 1853 for a list of other "non-4" and "non-6" IP tunnels, but these
>> are not IP-in-IP -- that should cite RFC2003 (though, as noted in
>> draft-ietf-tunnels, there are some issues with the details in that RFC).
> 
> I think it's probably better to use 4 and show the example as IPv4/IP
> encapsulation since that's probably more common.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> Int-area@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area