Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Wed, 02 June 2021 18:39 UTC
Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082103A165A; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Qn7cDtYj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=usz/aVrd
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 BMwyBYphJ0GB; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31283A1658; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=40907; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1622659165; x=1623868765; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Lj2/IPT4TGzdMCHk9hPfFGZvI1VkV8p/DHsudt/sw9c=; b=Qn7cDtYjvCbaamNAFj8cv5wJYvzwueLoJXyu9bBKq5D0eLXXY/6yH73c A6/bMG0HFgOgIZSDSP01/knFH8M7w0HNzh+dWrKCGF6/28nVwQkhWxz8Z 2Be3QIxcWSUDb327GyXp39T9oBFjd/wm0NGI170jSDwJRFvpD47qrK4VM M=;
X-IPAS-Result: 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
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:3jf45xwv9cNwv9nXCzPDngc9DxPP853/PxUe7dwsjLcdOqig/pG3O kvZ6L0tiVLSRozU5rpCjPaeqKHvX2EMoPPj+HAPeZBBTVkJ3MMRmQFzC8+eAkq9J/nvPGQ2G c1YXwpj+He2eUFeBMf5YQjUpXu/pT4fExnyL0x7POPwT4XTlM+wkeu1/s67Xg==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:96T2iqrbvBQKpkSk2Xd+V2caV5v9L9V00zEX/kB9WHVpm5Oj9v xGzc506farslkssSkb6K+90KnpewK6yXcH2/huAV7CZnimhILMFuFfBOTZskbd8kHFh4tgPO JbAtRD4b7LfBhHZKTBkXOF+r8bqbHtms3F9ISurUuFDzsaFp2IhD0JbDpzZ3cGPDWucqBJba Z0iPA3wwaISDAyVICWF3MFV+/Mq5ngj5T9eyMLABYh9U2nkS6owKSSKWna4j4uFxd0hZsy+2 nMlAL0oo+5teug9xPa32jPq7xLhdrazMdZDsDksLlWFtyssHfsWG1SYczEgNkHmpDo1L/sqq iUn/4UBbU215oWRBDsnfKi4Xi67N9k0Q6S9bbRuwqSnSW+fkNhNyKE7rgpLicwLCEbzYxBOe twrhCkX9A8N2KyoA3to9fPTB1kjUyyvD4rlvMSlWVWVc8EZKZWtpF3xjIbLH4sJlO21GkcKp gjMCgc3ocfTbqQVQGWgoCu+q3nYp0XJGbOfqEvgL3j79FmpgEz86JD/r1qop4pzuNKd3Br3Z WwDphV
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,242,1616457600"; d="scan'208,217";a="727771130"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Jun 2021 18:39:23 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 152IdNbw014153 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:39:23 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xbe-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:39:23 -0500
Received: from xfe-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.251) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:39:22 -0400
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xfe-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.251) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:39:22 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=GrlAbPqPISya87DINU+ZMPAiPEsNV8yNd/EuoWGGWCe5YeVgE3bSZqll9XGW4QImm3JjIbxJpRBCKteeRlKhsJ++PfEXbv2DiFXwN3wXWYhOcgEewwLTTX+D72WZCB4bOBxOG934+x49EHq/rr9wzfRwocQ7jf+cfGZh7aD6c7cBOrbKIYGkDyQZmtWl5x12ECaQXk6LHtHN3xO5tHTK517kpqkARhd7+XjRMfYQtFUAdnPu6UAK4htzqVRbHyzePHKOcJgSBr9APRRpIoF9z3h4R6A47PjBUVGPR2GIDjh+7DcXN0Fmh7m5uYKlpRnbqZO/xfwrVQxkR++/C6bwcw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Lj2/IPT4TGzdMCHk9hPfFGZvI1VkV8p/DHsudt/sw9c=; b=kAjkdENTQJ3k3A8yY5Nhn3TB5RcXyG+NIbnAvVeKZqkpOvSbZ6SGCj+VM9aFY5/KlXUB57wpLmu4w4gOERuYnkH8ZZeM7ovoxZZwMuZdVP7koRNfGf/ObQekCEVtsN7OcCDRQl9a3zFYqqAmWhgu1+juxwoYxZLZ6vn1Eq1Fxn5P1ml4BlIDx1nAjCqS4ZeIEdrUkhOmOjv0EwB0UozitTn5Kw+ogBms3fhWd/q+gE0PWiWRnEPoPhZvyb0EFASTSmrrtB1tKDml0y3V5gAILUvk771R6dz7aI+5ml/VmvEjftA1q1Xi6uPhTGcBM9LyYTyJGXUKeMGp4cq4V5qXWA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Lj2/IPT4TGzdMCHk9hPfFGZvI1VkV8p/DHsudt/sw9c=; b=usz/aVrdL5QsWrAAWR3bw2Am7zf0CcW/4uQJZBzEgwyFyKzdqiHCTh9nL/3L8tF0Fm5WQKvNL5FAdTXZ/EGyghWJ0OHHzjb/+Fh3G0sDMwDHXMgRAubnJwtQVD6r2G8RL/tVwxdKKHZjdM0dHbgb9zAY3ZfnTU8tBVYphetfLq8=
Received: from PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:42::21) by PH0PR11MB5159.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:3c::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4195.20; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:39:20 +0000
Received: from PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ccc:1b78:44b5:b74b]) by PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ccc:1b78:44b5:b74b%3]) with mapi id 15.20.4173.030; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:39:20 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHXVy/8Nh0NwrercEePzg2H6LuIrasAsA0AgACAS4A=
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 18:39:19 +0000
Message-ID: <F84F2BA3-EDAD-4F77-AFB8-0D019B435FC0@cisco.com>
References: <162258412074.27049.12889234606469717323@ietfa.amsl.com> <01A1C740-D43E-40F4-A066-B2CCC2A31A2F@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <01A1C740-D43E-40F4-A066-B2CCC2A31A2F@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.49.21050901
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:ed15:2207:c2d6:b779]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ddc06421-ef6c-499b-889f-08d925f5bc03
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PH0PR11MB5159:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <PH0PR11MB515953C8BFE0E0770EC445B9A93D9@PH0PR11MB5159.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(186003)(316002)(86362001)(5660300002)(6512007)(122000001)(8936002)(38100700002)(166002)(966005)(66446008)(66946007)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(76116006)(71200400001)(6486002)(21615005)(6506007)(53546011)(54906003)(110136005)(224303003)(36756003)(2616005)(2906002)(83380400001)(33656002)(478600001)(91956017)(4326008)(66574015)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F84F2BA3EDAD4F77AFB80D019B435FC0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ddc06421-ef6c-499b-889f-08d925f5bc03
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jun 2021 18:39:19.9068 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ONGRssqoE2LUUNMxez7xPzXLtYdSYt8x/EpXz3wUV6HgwA7RpUXzwb0kX7TdvZmsDtFYAe/OG+nexqoDojKXyw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH0PR11MB5159
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xbe-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5c1jI-iJbX1QUjFdf75nuI64aWE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 18:39:30 -0000
Zafar Thank you for a quick fix to my DISCUSS points while you are out-of-office. I am clearing my DISCUSS right away Obviously, a reply to my non-blocking COMMENT points can wait until you return ;-) Regards and if you are on vacations: enjoy ! -éric From: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, 2 June 2021 at 19:00 To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Eric, Many thanks for your comments; much appreciated. As I am out-of-office, may we please take a two-step approach: Step1: We have posted rev-11 to address your DISCUSS: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11 Step2: Please expect a follow-up email from us on your comments. We plan to post an update to address your comments (target: Before the telechat or later during the week) Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:49 PM To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org> Resent-To: <satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp>, <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>, <mach.chen@huawei.com>, <zali@cisco.com>, <cfilsfil@cisco.com> Resent-Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:48 PM Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. It is comforting (even if not surprising) that the simple "good old" ping/traceroute work on a SRv6 network ;-) Thanks to Carlos Bernardos for his INT-REVIEW at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2021-05-28/ Thanks to Ole Trøan for his shepherd document even if I regret the lack of justification for 'standards track'. Especially, because the abstract is mainly about ping/traceroute, hence should be informational but the O-flag is indeed standard track. So, all in all, this is OK. Please find below two blocking but trivial DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and one nit. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 2.1 -- As "a penultimate segment SHOULD NOT be a Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) SID" is normative, then the network programming RFC 8986 should be a normative reference. Trivial to fix. -- Section 9.2 -- Trivial to fix, RFC 8174 should be normative. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == COMMENTS == Is there any reason not to follow RFC 5952 about IPv6 address representation? I.e., not using uppercase ;-) (you may use uppercase for the 'variable' such as k). I understand that changing the case is a long and cumbersome endeavor... This comment is of course non-blocking. About the O-flag, as this I-D is about OAM, I would have expected that the document specifies some operational recommendations, e.g., collecting statistics about O-flag processing: packet count, requests ignored, ... -- Section 1 -- In the first sentence, is it RFC 8402 or RFC 8754 ? -- Section 1.3 -- I was about to raise a DISCUSS on this one... the abstract and introduction is about SRv6 and this section uses network programming example with END.X. Suggest to either modify abstract / introduction to mention RFC 8986 or simplify the example by not using END.X (e.g., not mentioning END.X as the plain SRH adj-sid behavior is END.X -- no need IMHO to introduce the network programming nomenclature). -- Section 2.1 -- Not important and feel free to ignore, but, while telemetry operation is important for OAM, OAM is broader than plain "telemetry data collect and export" (IMHO). I would have preferred the use of 'telemetry marking' for example. But, I guess it is too late to change the O-flag into a T-flag ;-) In "packet header", is the layer-2 header included ? IPFIX can export layer-2 information, hence my question. Perhaps better to use "IP header" here ? -- Section 2.1.1 -- I was again about the raise a DISCUSS on this point, S01.1 appears to be applicable to SRH/RFC 8754 while the text about PSP is clearly about net-pgm/RFC 8986. How can we reconciliate this ? Finally, in the case of PSP, should the normative pseudo-code be changed by introducing another 'if' in the pseudo-code ? -- Section 3.1.1 -- The figure 2 seems to have an incoherent 'screen shot' as 2001:db8:A:5:: is used as the ping target but the output of the ping displays "B5::". What did I miss ? The node N4 is assumed to "performs the standard SRH processing" but later it needs to process a "PSP SID", which is not standard SRH RFC but in the net-pgm one. -- Section 3.2.1 -- I wonder whether "These ICMPv6 responses are IP routed." is really useful here as plain IP routing will be applied (or do you mean no using SRH in the reply?). The example uses "DA" while I would expect that this would be the "SA" of the received ICMP messages. But, this is cosmetic. -- Section 3.2.2 -- What is a "classic IPv6 node" ? I guess it is a 'non SRv6-capable node' => to be added in the terminology section ? -- Section 3.3 -- "The local OAM process sends a full or partial copy" it really smells like a postcard OAM while IPFIX can be used to send aggregated data, which is also very useful. All in all, if this is a local send to another process, then worth mentioning it. == NITS == -- Section 1.3 -- As figure 1 uses a double border for SRv6-capable nodes, let's mention it in the text.
- Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-s… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)