Re: [Isis-wg] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-04

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Fri, 21 April 2017 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753C9129B28; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.022
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q75m-19qnvda; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA85129AC1; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9074; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492739082; x=1493948682; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FQcOFq7EubK/EGRY6DMUEMuHhJDmnwdDEnfPSlBeYZM=; b=KQbhO289IKBZ0mqkf7YCdEkVOSvHpD1W2rUfeywmLeDrlazGOReT2l/B keswfXjOwICEglrEy4IABW1gwGZPyGigU4/Zk+zWf8ubjiY4fiptwzlMO sFlSPffQD5ZCNy/OHUQ+oOt4MnyTZw5AUmne2gUBieHz3Y2VMgO3njpfj A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,227,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="17574349"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Apr 2017 01:44:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3L1ifjd019429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:44:41 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:44:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:44:40 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-04
Thread-Index: AQHSujhRu8Bbwjbrzkiw0v6PO9WOMqHPCMzA
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:44:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:44:44 -0000

Mahesh -

Thanx for the review.
Responses inline. Let me know if these adequately address your comments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mahesh Jethanandani []
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:44 PM
> To:
> Cc:;;
> Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-04
> Reviewer: Mahesh Jethanandani
> Review result: Has Issues
> 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 with the intent of improving the
> operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in
> last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document
> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
> call comments.
> Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-04
> Summary:
> There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS operates
> is a Layer 2 interface bundle.  Existing IS-IS advertisements only support
> advertising link attributes of the Layer 3 interface. If entities external to IS-IS
> wish to control traffic flows on the individual physical links which comprise
> the Layer 2 interface bundle link attribute information about the bundle
> members is required.
> Document Status:
> Has Issues
> Comments:
> The following comments look at the document both from an operational
> perspective as well as a management perspective.
> Operational Considerations:
> Operational considerations include installation and initial setup, migration
> path, requirements on other protocols, impact on network operations and
> verification of correct operation.
> Advertisement of these link attributes needs to be configured, including
> which attributes will be advertised. While there are some attributes, e.g. max
> link bandwidth, which can be learnt and advertised, there are others that
> need configuration. What is not clear from the draft is which of the attributes
> should be configured as  a minimum, and if they can have default values that
> they can carry.

[Les:] There is no default/minimum set of attributes. What attributes will be advertised are determined by the use case. What this draft is defining is the transport i.e., what attribute advertisements the protocol is capable of advertising. As with traditional TE what attributes are actually advertised is determined by the application.

> Since these are TLVs, it is assumed that the controller that does not
> understand the advertisement will ignore the TLV. From a network
> operations perspective, there will be more of these advertisements that
> need to be sent, and will have to tracked and maintained by the controller.
> Whether these advertisements result in a correct operation is not obvious,
> because there is no feedback mechanism on how these advertisements are
> being used, other than watching the changes that happen from a TE
> perspective.

[Les:] The definition of "correct operation" depends upon the use case. IS-IS is simply transporting the attributes advertisements. It is unaware of how these advertisements are being used and how traffic may be affected by the use of these advertisements. So it is the application(s) which use this information which need to define what behavior is expected.

> Management Considerations:
> Management considerations include interoperability, fault management,
> configuration management, accounting, performance and security.
> The attributes being advertised are additional to existing link attributes. In
> that sense, it is new and additional information, as does not impact existing
> operations. Controllers that understand the new advertisements will use
> them, and those that do not, will ignore them. Interoperability therefore,
> should not be impacted.
> However, there is no discussion of fault management. For example, if one of
> the links in the bundle goes down, are the attribute values updated to reflect
> the new state of the bundle. There is also no definition of how these
> attributes are configured on the box. Ideally, we should see a YANG model
> defining the new attributes that can be configured for advertisement.

[Les:] Certainly if the bundle membership changes these change MUST be reflected in the advertisements i.e., removal/addition of a bundle member MUST result in removal/addition of advertisements associated with that bundle member.
If a bundle member is down this should be reflected in the same way that L3 advertisements are withdrawn when a given L3 link goes down.

Means of configuration of link attributes is out of scope for this draft. I would expect such configuration to be applied in the context of the bundle member interfaces.

> As discussed above, there is no accounting for how these new
> advertisements are being used, or whether they are being used by the
> controller at all. Updates to TE as a result of these advertisements should be
> accounted to indicate the effectiveness of the new advertisements.

[Les:] This also falls in the scope of the application. IS-IS does not know how or if link attributes are used.

> Performance should not be an issue, as these are advertisements, even if
> they take up a small amount of additional bandwidth for advertisement.
> Finally, and importantly, the draft needs to address the question of security,
> even if it means pointing to a boiler plate set of drafts that deal with similar
> issues. It would be hard to believe that there are no security considerations
> to be had.

[Les:] Agreed. Security section should reference the standard security specifications for the protocol (RFC 5304/RFC 5310).

> A run of idnits revealed no errors, flaws, or warnings. There were 3
> comments though
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
> 'IEEE802.1AX'
>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
> 'ISO10589'
[Les:] These warnings are seen when referencing non-RFC documents. The referenced documents are standards and are correctly identified as normative references.

>      Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).