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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C2312945B for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 y81ANgvGcQsw for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75510129464 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9604; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495676372; x=1496885972; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=T+FD/TBbYdiFDFLB3JXkM/9arcensRvUXj58gOc4YGw=; b=ef3yy4mt7noOj33UqwTfyh6ksFiJhJ2Cj47+aZFeAKXz48dlWHuUQbjZ wZ4v0N5Mwq+2O/xlGRj9lAsV5qfaotV1iU02mC/82zEOuWGIPG8zeHxMV U2Kqoz7klnC1q+Z+Fbin2hvo/ixOl3zS/SIooU233HqddnUj1R+PL2bNh 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DAAACaNSZZ/4YNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2iKGJFciCeNUIIPIQuFeAIaglk/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRgBAQEBAgEBASEROgsFBwQCAQgRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIfBgsUAQgIAgQOBQiKB?= =?us-ascii?q?gMNCA6uG4ImhzQNhBEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuFVIFdAYMcglV?= =?us-ascii?q?NgRMSAUKCbIJgBZ1oOwGHH4cwhE+CD1WEZ4o1izKJGwEfOH8LcRUcKoR3HIFjd?= =?us-ascii?q?gGHE4EhgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,389,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="429405695"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 May 2017 01:39:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4P1dMsk003235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 May 2017 01:39:22 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 24 May 2017 20:39:21 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 24 May 2017 20:39:21 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "mjethanandani@gmail.com" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS1PAo4KdfACMqLUawlr6I8TMo4KIEOBAAgABedQD//64hsA==
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 01:39:21 +0000
Message-ID: <f0893e23975b44228803df5510ad6198@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <149567309799.8624.16080269380002810311@ietfa.amsl.com> <9b951044ae6b4bc69012fffe393ceefc@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CAHbuEH6fNcTEvt6m5UOk+Qj_+HuzG_HfUpfD=A7zk75xoomtVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH6fNcTEvt6m5UOk+Qj_+HuzG_HfUpfD=A7zk75xoomtVg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.61.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/_zVcJulD693ImvlNr2TJiwxCHg0>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 01:39:38 -0000

Kathleen -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:29 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org; Mirja Kühlewind; Adam Roach; Eric Rescorla; Suresh
> Krishnan; Benoit Claise (bclaise); mjethanandani@gmail.com; Alissa Cooper;
> Alvaro Retana (aretana); Ben Campbell
> Subject: 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?
> 
[Les:] I did not do this. It is a difficult model to follow when writing a document if one is required to explain everything that is NOT an issue.
The new statement in the draft says:

"No new security issues are introduced by the protocol extensions
   defined inn this document.  Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed
   in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]."

I believe this is both accurate and complete - and my comments above explain why.

   Les

> 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