Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 06 December 2017 16:13 UTC
Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 0173A126C19; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:13:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 ABO0rZhrs6oA; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 C2F1C124F57; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108163.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vB6GAK49015517; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:13:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=Tb1OeBbMDEkicU3AGYNBwwJUo62nRV/wWLXa0IeCYp0=; b=xlRfapQ1T1FyP6Mxu6ZLjoGz9/tdNjdwMIEmtAcWfJhJ0lr41pcnr6kPWNEIQrYCyh+y cX+XK8aCtcWUTugG4TeQi/co6QSNcL1XeIT+2R0I1pIj3XBLYuqmp3R6fm+hmM0oVdU1 vwdXp6pIcOpgFIwYgGrnha60GQD8uj3eq/eyBeH61/9wiEwjkluf+4z4qMVkXLQUhzjf WR4u+z8/cAOvF87AwR3Q5RCJ9dOSKwfyaII4Jhha7akF9YjHmkuBA7/pXF9qU9+gMQ4C osz15XTLnlRa7YXUC2BxNsDDUw+F4UCYbXybPx/n8bKf21TQP2YG1I42WX6c4ul2rcha 9w==
Received: from nam03-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03lp0047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.47]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2epjpegaej-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Dec 2017 08:13:48 -0800
Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.302.2; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:13:45 +0000
Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) with mapi id 15.20.0302.007; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:13:45 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org" <l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Thread-Index: AQHTaiRuRafa/tTkJkyxmsfBUNAviKMzrbSwgAAJEgCAABf5QIACZmwAgABQBZA=
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:13:45 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR0501MB20512FFCA0E2F0D3FE13057AAE320@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <151207827781.25922.11037452280009787600@ietfa.amsl.com> <BLUPR0501MB205123A6FAFFAC15461D1845AE3C0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5fabd8f9-9663-4c7f-370b-6095f999b7b2@joelhalpern.com> <BLUPR0501MB2051CA127D79FF9ED62C2D2FAE3C0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f677822c-bce9-bbb7-db32-49c0c023648e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f677822c-bce9-bbb7-db32-49c0c023648e@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2049; 6:3dEQkimhCf0MDQ/fcJiRWV+QVt+o1ISBOydnlc5Et/JsKDIaZqQIoRxMGpXK6foSd3GBDelEj5n55XlLh3SSXzgEwmh7mdF1xfUVgkB4ZTvxbgAVn2OAhTGDq/sWVaW5y/6dfXXnLeJdQrtjvAuBKc/CkNGdFHz+n0azkZ5Wuy0azUfE0qLuPP0MY65wDb8DuUJG55UTyVS6R/KEjDn6xEarILVeKizSgcZHQrTgFOt769Qg7CYghf5qgqWL4OtbI1oB9UPr3WxSKULVn1H60KwlpgXg+TUsEcyUfUrn82k0N8cmKoSNboR8QKIoIy7LOvgOjjqFFFIbQ01HzyrVP5kJqTaYW3MttYWZt8RTPHM=; 5:XKAOMwR33GJbRjX4KhaR9T9A8ZPmvRjy5fm63s+DPZuMAV79p8B8vjsgfa9zPckKz9362TMwkoi4m9wlhb4PlWh1etsOyp+lqEijKoPwnwkKy8eLNL3sUzmOSGrn2k3vh4ylQcVUBTTZNT571wo4Po558crPC5RZllpAH7yZOr4=; 24:koXE89dV0XGju8+Uq6Aqg4c36UJNDikawmTV+ciqfaimb5+tsSV/kP+u0yQmMH82E1LHpr1oG+jEAwzKF/JLYDXBQHJ0D3Zlr8xoknAkqvQ=; 7:6POKHohfp+e7Lw+BtNIbxDxT/RntSgNXr+gYIvjfkamHYi1OdmDzD1GlKLOUZ40g48oYM5JQ5p2v1eMxCn2ts8G4vafWaTNS1ZkBbFDZy22aKcaB+1Muwbkdii1sDzYsolv1PjrTTRPpYxDsWjnHs1KDGVoelJ34jsMHK3T5wsI47txyLzqW9D+lIe0FqK2oW4FySHEjk4J+d4ffQmdakW2anU0t15VGPcTWh3kTviBEIVoIzqovNYKsoz8v3GPi
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 806a62dc-f77d-4967-64c0-08d53cc45376
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(5600026)(4604075)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(2017052603286); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2049;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR0501MB2049:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR0501MB20497E19C9B2962BA56D524FAE320@BLUPR0501MB2049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(138986009662008);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3231022)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2049; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2049;
x-forefront-prvs: 05134F8B4F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(366004)(51914003)(76104003)(24454002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(377424004)(305945005)(14454004)(53546010)(76176011)(7696005)(3660700001)(478600001)(7736002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(66066001)(105586002)(33656002)(966005)(39060400002)(106356001)(230783001)(4326008)(53936002)(3280700002)(25786009)(101416001)(74316002)(6246003)(2906002)(229853002)(102836003)(3846002)(86362001)(8936002)(2950100002)(6116002)(316002)(575784001)(110136005)(54906003)(97736004)(99286004)(7416002)(55016002)(93886005)(6436002)(6506006)(68736007)(9686003)(6306002)(5660300001)(4001150100001)(2501003)(2900100001)(77096006)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2049; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 806a62dc-f77d-4967-64c0-08d53cc45376
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Dec 2017 16:13:45.3692 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2049
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-06_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1712060234
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/WrQdz8tngsjC2B-NiU1GiHftyWs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 08:15:33 -0800
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:13:55 -0000
Stewart, Having thought about it for a while, you may be right. PROBE was meant to be an IP tool. Pseudo-wire endpoints were an afterthought, and not a very good afterthought at that. Let's remove the E-bit (aka P-bit) and limit Probe to querying the status of IP interfaces. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 6:24 AM > To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Joel M. Halpern > <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org; The > IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > > I cannot quite work out from the document how this works, but if we are > going to PING non-IP interfaces I think the groups that work on those need > some time to reflect on the implications. > > There are certainly a number of non-IP interfaces that may have Ethernet > addresses. > > However, I am not sure from a quick look at the text how you would address > any interface running a PW other than Ethernet. > > Bottom line, I think this needs to either preclude non-IP interfaces, or the > groups that work with non-IP interfaces need to think through the > implications, and possibly propose new identifier types. > > - Stewart > > > On 04/12/2017 22:48, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Joel, > > > > The important piece of information is that this is a pseudowire endpoint. > These days, most pseudowire endpoints seem to be Ethernet. But some > aren't. There are still some legacy layer 2 pseudowires hanging around. > > > > So, since we can't enumerate every type of pseudowire endpoint, we > might as well just call it a pseudowire endpoint and provide no further > information about the type. > > > > > > Ron > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > >> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 4:19 PM > >> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; gen-art@ietf.org > >> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; > >> ietf@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > >> > >> Thank you Ron. > >> > >> On the E-bit (or P-Bit), is the important goal that it is a virtual > >> interface, that it is pseudowire, or ? It might help there text > >> indicating what a receiver might do differently based on this bit being set > or unset. > >> Having said that, Ethernet Pseudowire is at least a clearer > >> distinction than just "Ethernet". And as long as the bit has a clear > >> definition, any disagreement about what "should" be identified is clealry > NOT a show stopper. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >> On 12/4/17 4:13 PM, Ron Bonica wrote: > >>> Hi Joel, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the review. Responses inline...... > >>> > >>> Ron > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Joel Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM > >>>> To: gen-art@ietf.org > >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; > >>>> ietf@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > >>>> > >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern > >>>> Review result: Almost Ready > >>>> > >>>> 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 wait for direction from your > >>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > >>>> > >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at > >>>> > >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>> > >> > 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr > >>>> 6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- > >>>> > >> > AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=hKAAxSQXBFWxkxtwUUKzdYcvZ22_3zrp0OZhHK > >>>> V2AH4&s=X_Kje37D5HB_DdICxGgn_TkAqoXymCuJdJetUjwYPy4&e=>. > >>>> > >>>> Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern > >>>> Review Date: 2017-11-30 > >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13 > >>>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14 > >>>> > >>>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a > >>>> Proposed Standard RFC. > >>>> > >>>> Major issues: > >>>> I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are > >>>> sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used. The texts > >>>> seems to indicate > >>>> that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed > >> interface. > >>>> But I can not see how. > >>> [RB ] > >>> Good catch. > >>> > >>> At one time I thought that this was necessary because IPv6 > >>> link-local > >> addresses are not necessarily unique to the node. So, you might need > >> to probe by IP address and something else (e.g., ifName). However, > >> ifName is unique to the node. So, one instance of the interface > >> identification object is enough. > >>> I will remove that sentence. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Minor issues: > >>>> In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is > >>>> identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC > >>>> 2863. I > >> would > >>>> expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223, > >>>> the YANG model for the Interface stack. > >>> [RB ] > >>> Fair enough. I will make that change in the next version. > >>> > >>>> The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd. > >>>> Shall we try > >> to > >>>> encode all the possible interface types in this field? Shall we try to > >>>> distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...? What > >>>> about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.) I do not > >>>> understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous. > >>> [RB ] > >>> Looking back, I described that badly. This bit is set if the > >>> interface is a > >> pseudowire endpoint and it is running Ethernet. > >>> Maybe I should call it the P-bit for Pseudowire endpoint. We don't > >>> need to > >> specify what type of pseudowire it is. > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>>> Nits/editorial comments: > >>>> I find the description of the node containing the proxy > >>>> interface as > >> being > >>>> "the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the > >>>> node > >> containing > >>>> the probed interface. I would have expected it to be called "the > proxy > >>>> node"? > >>> [RB ] > >>> > >>> Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision. > >>> > >>>> Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is > equal > >>>> to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to > >>>> say "otherwise, clear the A-bit." > >>>> > >>> [RB ] > >>> Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision. > >>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > Gen-art@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > man_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDT > > XcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- > AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=3aYviNNhuXQukU > > cgg_np7tq6-CJZDv9M_hHVW_ulyzo&s=7TxRC3k3Vsozba6OX8GmaFv_c- > 9INm2pcVkjqx > > sPpr0&e=
- [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-i… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review o… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review o… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review o… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper