Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt

Hi Les,

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
> Folks -
>
> This revision addresses a number of review comments received during IESG review.
>
> Here are some responses to some of the points raised by reviewers (all reviewers have been copied on this email I hope).
>
> 1)Security section has been revised.
>
> 2)* Appendix A: The length value for "L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors"
> under "TLV for Adjacency #2" is wrong. It says 29 but it needs to be 32
>
> This has been corrected - thank you Suresh.
> I also changed to using RFC5737 approved addresses in the examples.
>
> 3)Comments provided by Mahesh in his OPS DIR review and cited by Benoit have been addressed
>
> 4)Alvaro commented:
>
>     " I would like to see some discussion related to the "interface" with these external entities."
>
> I have added explicit text indicating this is out of scope. To defend this here are several examples:
>
>    RFC 5305 does not discuss how link attribute information is passed to TE applications
>    Protocol documents do not define how information is passed to PCE - we have PCE WG documents for that
>    Protocol documents do not define how link state info is passed to BGP-LS - we write separate BGP-LS drafts for that
>
> I hope my response suffices.
>
> 5)Kathleen Moriarty argued that advertisement of
>    o  IPv4 Interface Address (sub-TLV 6 defined in [RFC5305])
>    o  IPv6 Interface Address (sub-TLV 12 defined in [RFC6119])
>    o  Link Local/Remote Identifiers (sub-TLV 4 defined in [RFC5307])
>
> exposes new security issues.

This was a question as opposed to an argument as I was trying to find
all possible security issues to assist with adding a security
considerations section.  I do see that path exposure is covered by the
security considerations in other is-is documents.

>
> I disagree.
>
> Interface addresses are associated with the parent L3 link and are already being advertised by IS-IS via existing TE extensions (e.g. RFC 5305, RFC 4205).
> Link IDs for the L2 Links which are advertised are readily available today via network management tools.

Will these be referenced then in the security consideration section
for completeness as it is still an issue?

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
> 6)The shepherd's report and some reviewers have mentioned that there currently is no OSPF equivalent document.
>
> This statement is true, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the progress of this IS-IS draft.
> It is often the case that equivalent drafts are written for OSPF and IS-IS because the same functionality may be required in deployments using either protocol. However we have never linked the progress of the two documents together - it is often the case that one document is written and proceeds before the other.
>
> I think it would be quite reasonable for OSPF to support equivalent functionality and it may be that someone - based on real deployment requirements (which is what has driven the writing of the IS-IS draft) - will write such a draft soon. But why this is deemed an issue for the progression of the IS-IS draft is a mystery to me.
>
> I do want to thank all the reviewers for their time and their diligence. I think the document is significantly improved based on your comments.
>
>    Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
>> drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:45 PM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
>>         Authors         : Les Ginsberg
>>                           Ahmed Bashandy
>>                           Clarence Filsfils
>>                           Mohan Nanduri
>>                           Ebben Aries
>>       Filename        : draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
>>       Pages           : 17
>>       Date            : 2017-05-24
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    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.
>>
>>    This document introduces the ability for IS-IS to advertise the link
>>    attributes of layer 2 (L2) bundle members.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles/
>>
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen