Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 08:51 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAC43A0B2F; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 01:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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
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 3Ymh0aY7-cDg; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 01:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06E4A3A0AEC; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 01:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6377; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1591692716; x=1592902316; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tmCSNz7xGJNwp9TRTWbRJKfs8OLQtU5oF6gk2nUcwNU=; b=Txs+QvI+698HfyA6DmfYU3kjJQyy1UB7qu+wgwAzrn3XcajdbxwBnbnr FrGy4Mj6HX8EEVq4hyGpMRbe9USCb/TT5ORNi3gdVao8sjWi9G0O8Xyha 7NHK2zM8s2PB4y76fBm+xJIpUGGweSV3TQZy3QS+9P8tG6J+T6jXiL8ce w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CdAADYTN9e/xbLJq1mGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBAQEBAgIBAQEBQIFKgxpUASASLIQkiQGHYyWbfAsBAQEOLwQBAYREAoIVJTgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVnhXIBAQEBAgEjDwEFLxIMBAsRAwEBAQECAiMDAgJGCQgGAQwGAgEBgyIBglwgsAl2gTKFUYNwgToGgQ4qjGuBQT+BEAEnDIJdPoQlT4JugmAEjwsfpFyCY4J9lX0FBwMdgmiJEoRujWKRA544gWoiDIFKMxoIGxWDJFAZDZBMF44nPwMwNwIGAQcBAQMJjUyCRQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,491,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="26959583"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Jun 2020 08:51:51 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0598poB7010964; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 08:51:51 GMT
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org>
References: <159068537978.29606.17882487660677527802@ietfa.amsl.com> <be900a0e-2f9f-e9f9-ad87-63121ae9703c@cisco.com> <SN6PR13MB2334975577CB640D7812E816858F0@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <dffb293d-2b95-9e89-eba3-567de72b8ae0@cisco.com> <SN6PR13MB23347E70A4C0DDA9BBA2E618858A0@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <23b697ab-b773-b781-5e84-15c64f008907@cisco.com> <SN6PR13MB2334A52B86871EDE9D04C54885820@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <a3b59dda-86b2-0480-1055-6079468844c3@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:51:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR13MB2334A52B86871EDE9D04C54885820@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/UrlqhfMwn_L6Kjwh-7vVJMaOPMo>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 08:51:59 -0000
Linda, On 09/06/2020 02:37, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Peter, > > Thank you very much for adding the extra text to explain. > > But SR is supposed to be transparent to all intermediate nodes. Does your draft require a node to be specifically configured for each link to support or not support SR or RSVP-TE? the draft does not pose any new requirements in terms of how applications are enabled. Please note that RSVP-TE is typically enabled per interface, SRTE is typically enabled on a per node basis. > > In addition, there is no new attributes described in the document. So if a node is advertising TE related attributes for a specific link, such as bandwidth, delay, what kind problems this node will encounter if a remote node utilize those TE specific attributes? the problem is when the link attributes advertise for the purpose of application other than RSVP-TE is mistakenly used by RSVP-TE. thanks, Peter > > Linda Dunbar > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 11:01 AM > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12 > > Hi Linda, > > > On 01/06/2020 17:30, Linda Dunbar wrote: >> Peter, >> You said: >> /“//the problem with existing advertisement is that RSVP-TE will use >> it, even if it was not intended to be used by RSVP-TE.//”/ What is the >> problem if RSVP-TE use the advertisement? What specific attributes >> that RSVP-TE shouldn’t use? > > Following text has been added to the draft based on comments from Scott. > > "An example where this ambiguity causes problem is a network which has RSVP-TE enabled on one subset of links, and SRTE enabled on a different subset. A link attribute is advertised for the purpose of some other application (e.g. SRTE) for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE. As soon as the router that is an RSVP-TE head-end sees the link attribute being advertised for such link, it assumes RSVP-TE is enabled on that link, even though in reality, RSVP-TE is not enabled on it. If such RSVP-TE head-end router tries to setup an RSVP-TE path via link where RSVP-TE is not enabled it will result in the path setup failure." > > Hope it makes it clear and addresses your question. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > >> Linda Dunbar >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> >> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:00 AM >> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; gen-art@ietf.org >> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; >> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of >> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12 >> Linda, >> On 29/05/2020 16:52, Linda Dunbar wrote: >>> Peter, >>> You said: >>> /we are not defining any new attributes./ /We are allowing an >>> existing link attributes to be used by other applications, including, >>> but not limited to SRTE./ What prevent a node (or an application on >>> the node) receiving the LSA from using the attributes carried by the LSA? >> the problem with existing advertisement is that RSVP-TE will use it, >> even if it was not intended to be used by RSVP-TE. >> We are providing a way to explicitly advertised apps that are allowed >> to use the advertised attributes. >>> If no new attributes are >>> to be added, then why need a new ASLA sub-TLV? >> to be able to use the existing attributes for new apps, other than RSVP-TE. >> thanks, >> Peter >>> Linda >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> >>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:51 AM >>> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com >>> <mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>; >> gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> >>> Cc: last-call@ietf.org <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org >> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; >>> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org >> <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.org> >>> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of >>> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12 >>> Hi Linda, >>> On 28/05/2020 19:02, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote: >>>> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar >>>> Review result: Not 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 treat these comments just like >>>> any other last call comments. >>>> >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>> >>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C1bd0e81d5279453d853808d8064500a2%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637266240741960001&sdata=faz4UopBwiK3D0CXWu%2BiebFOje9qfJt1wL6J4QqcjlY%3D&reserved=0>. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-?? >>>> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar >>>> Review Date: 2020-05-28 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-29 >>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>>> >>>> Summary: this document introduces a new link attribute advertisement >>>> in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 to address general link properties needed for >>>> new applications, such as Segment Routing. >>>> >>>> Major issues: >>>> The document has good description on the TLV structure of the >>>> Application specific Advertisements, but fails to describe what are >>>> the NEW Link attributes needed by Segment Routing. Page 7 (section >>>> 5) has a really good description on all the link properties added to >>>> OSFP (RFC4203, RFC 7308, RFC7471, RFC3630) to achieve TE. I can see >>>> Segment Routing would need each node to advertise its own SID and >>>> the SIDs of adjacent nodes. Can't they be encoded (or extended) in OSPF's NODE ID? >>> we are not defining any new attributes. >>> We are allowing an existing link attributes to be used by other >>> applications, including, but not limited to SRTE. >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Linda Dunbar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > >
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Last-Call] [Lsr] Genart last call review of … Peter Psenak
- Re: [Last-Call] [Lsr] Genart last call review of … Linda Dunbar