Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 06 December 2017 17:18 UTC
Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 63B1D1275FD; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:18:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 B0bXprred0OX; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 7DE7A1275F4; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z34so4677981wrz.10; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:18:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=a09ofW4gdwYjGg0mWJPX2PwvyNqM1hJNTLZwMs63+80=; b=lCtjCq3Y6RlyPvip0srEYYJGJ2h8O/YzuZVjKHrUFhW2/jpAz1TNnW2JCI9SwynO+j c6nloMN6hbzMLJ3FdH8QUMup/TUUrlvD+t1XCCoF3Waa4POpxBqbcWkMv4iJ9ar84vuA MVuH/CzPvr4aBzy4wAXVkIB9NDXxqXmCXo5JLKNEqhF/pj4Hm240V49GOTD13Hi2bZfk M/zpnP8J7cscAPiCIhUnJ1W4b4qPV0fSEG2UEQHmUs35I2hjywW+TFB1IRmr99ewCsHV XloOJ1oFAnIGqXoZLFzfpDR2VqSa64RaHWZCvU5ghZ8BKOFcLV7KvCVFSyOjM3isIyt2 eOsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=a09ofW4gdwYjGg0mWJPX2PwvyNqM1hJNTLZwMs63+80=; b=AmJML35+cf9giS3cb/QmPq31NuOrMhDUeL6CfGaWmlSpDJJJUoviQO2aulViZ4FUb/ qxeoMlBO2PN74JbvGZ7p7LWo6ofueDL2RdcDwx+IBFCUjveu+4JH5MZx7NJXHRn0NX36 3bHcj1AwzK4+DWsXUZbFsBd4utXoaJH0XZKWb5h9i5r9OYlpPJ2gVyF2F9/VgcgCBtf9 eOidDgeaaTlH5sgTOCamnIMEjYbZ4oKaCSVYIcq+c4/M9zGDkfflhdavOXbKky+uFXLJ Yd8SiLEmP64s7gKoiNLNHI/3Jd+E9O7hdQQ2uyv5SzwcSei+2FnOj/iLrmFXH2GFwvdF fUUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5HhV2auN78OP6CLPGqA2apqS83Y7FrTtcQ6yawfcdm3ZLkCm4U 1GZ3r5UXsJXvdN3kSlHnzHC0NsoP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZaJjKaSOPYVs2kgJ8fJKnWBpRLbRcmLp+LyVqwx30hx/KMvszk/zJNcL6vbsGSm7oZpmxQUg==
X-Received: by 10.223.154.182 with SMTP id a51mr19384462wrc.48.1512580734632; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a74sm4397777wrc.7.2017.12.06.09.18.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:18:53 -0800 (PST)
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "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>
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> <BLUPR0501MB20512FFCA0E2F0D3FE13057AAE320@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c196c3a7-d163-bd4f-7bc7-43b6938491f0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 17:18:52 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0501MB20512FFCA0E2F0D3FE13057AAE320@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/dvxfeRUpFdi35EsnFcaeWZjXSQc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 10:51:45 -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 17:18:59 -0000
Ron, Yes you can always add it in later as an update after thinking through the problem in more detail. - Stewart On 06/12/2017 16:13, Ron Bonica wrote: > 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