Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Fri, 10 January 2020 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FEF1200CD; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:03:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 w_GA7779eqOe; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B27012001E; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00AItoeX017914; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:03:35 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xeus1649u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:03:34 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 00AJ3WlM017918; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:03:33 -0500
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [135.66.87.31]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 00AJ3S3k017754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:03:28 -0500
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 221274009E88; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:03:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.150]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 056AB4009E89; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:03:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.49]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:03:27 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <fmaino@cisco.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saXNw?= =?utf-8?Q?-gpe-05:_(with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHUUFDdrGXy7u5t8UK1eJZx5YzeLqT5fQ2Agui5L4CAAZfOgIADYL8A
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:03:27 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8AF87B199@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <153738612868.21424.5753365080841918983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c31f2457-0803-6a98-5970-10acf9782e10@cisco.com> <F07DBBF7-BAEB-4D88-8552-EB3A64AC72C2@cisco.com> <7B0AFA55-F5F0-4B7A-A898-A1E175CB096B@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <7B0AFA55-F5F0-4B7A-A898-A1E175CB096B@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.9.133.194]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-10_01:2020-01-10, 2020-01-09 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001100153
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/2hNPi2MWOQ4NK3RRoK2Xk-5VVBQ>
Subject: Re: [lisp] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?lisp-gpe-05=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:03:43 -0000

Hi Mirja,

The plan is to Last Call the set of documents (gpe, bis's) and put on a future telechat. First, the author teams want to ensure they have addressed all the current Discusses/comments and they are working to get the documents ready.

Thanks all - the documents are much improved!
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 5:22 AM
To: Fabio Maino (fmaino) <fmaino@cisco.com>om>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; lisp-chairs@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org; Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Fabio,

Thanks for all the work. Changes look good to me and I think my discuss comments are addressed.

One small comment/nit: I think you also should define the “Reserved” field in Figure 2. It’s not mention in the text, and even though the meaning is obvious, I assume it was an oversight that it's not described.

Given the large set of changes, it’s good that another wg last call took place. I think given more or less whole document has changes, it could be approbate to also have another IETF last call and put it back on a future telechat agenda. But I let Deborah decide about this. 

Deborah what's your plan here?

Mirja



> On 8. Jan 2020, at 00:02, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> It took quite some time, but I think we are finally making progress 
> with the review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe and the related LISP RFCbis 
> drafts 
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf
> .org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Drfc6830bis_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQ
> icvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=P3uTUROTWL7J4b_XZZt4t4VKyYB-AcvU0YVl
> PPk33Nw&s=oRnVaMWUr_mvYyEiDEkkNTuBOAIOJ_vBnr3COsvsMrI&e=
> , https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Drfc6833bis_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=P3uTUROTWL7J4b_XZZt4t4VKyYB-AcvU0YVlPPk33Nw&s=3I9q-AoB6EQNPtTNvKH36_EP-xCFPQESZPH7CeFoVuo&e=  ).
> 
> Could you please take a look at the latest rev -13 of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Dgpe_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=P3uTUROTWL7J4b_XZZt4t4VKyYB-AcvU0YVlPPk33Nw&s=BueHq0NVA0sDhX7r1hme2y4YHEnu52LCy7alSTn3nIc&e= , and let us  know if we have addressed your comments?
> 
> Wrt lisp-gpe, compared with rev -05 that you last reviewed, we have done two main changes that might help addressing your DISCUSS: 
> 1.	We have introduced the concept of shim header, along the line of what Mirja suggested in her comment. The chairs thought that the change was significant enough to require a new last call with the WG, that we did after Singapore
> 2.	 We have introduced section 4 that, following what done in RFC8085 and RFC8086, defines the scope of applicability of LISP-GPE and makes considerations related with congestion control, UDP checksum, and ethernet payload encapsulation. 
> 
> Please, let me know if you have any further question or suggestion. 
> 
> I have attached a diff from rev -05 that is the one to which your ballot comments were referring to. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Fabio
> 
> 
> On 9/20/18, 1:22 PM, "Fabio Maino" <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>    Thanks for your notes Mirja.
> 
>    I'll publish an updated rev this evening to consolidate the changes that 
>    I believe we have agreed upon, and then I'll work on those that are 
>    still open.
> 
>    Please see below.
> 
> 
>    On 9/19/18 12:42 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_ies
>> g_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg
>> &r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=P3uTUROTWL7J4b_XZZt4t4VKyYB-AcvU0YVlPPk33
>> Nw&s=LRs3yFVTl5Y1iOdjAu80URJVGsWHi2UmiUaeJ0j9Imw&e=
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf
>> .org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Dgpe_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg
>> &r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=P3uTUROTWL7J4b_XZZt4t4VKyYB-AcvU0YVlPPk33
>> Nw&s=BueHq0NVA0sDhX7r1hme2y4YHEnu52LCy7alSTn3nIc&e=
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> DISCUSS:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> Thanks for addressing the TSV-ART review (and Magnus for doing the 
>> review)! I assume that the proposed text will be incorporated in the 
>> next version. (Would have been even better if those (larger) changes 
>> would have been added before the doc was put on the telechat; please 
>> update as soon as possible so other AD can review that text as well).
>> 
>> However, I think the text still needs to say more about HOW the PCP 
>> should be mapped to DSCPs. RFC8325 doesn't provide guidelines but a mapping for 802.11.
>> Is the same mapping applicable here?
> 
>    Agree. As pointed out by Magnus' latest email there's more investigation 
>    needed here. I'll get back on this.
> 
>> 
>> Also, I'm not an expert for that part, but I guess there also is 
>> further guidance needed on HOW to map the VID...?
> 
>    This is really straightforward, as the VID is a 12-bit field, and the 
>    IID is 24-bit. Implementation that I'm aware of typically carve a 
>    portion of the IID space to encode the VID.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> COMMENT:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> Given this doc uses the last reserved bit in the lisp header, I would 
>> really like to see more discussion how the data plane lisp can still 
>> be extended. I think the solution is straight-forward (define a shim 
>> layer for the extension and announce this capability in the 
>> Map-Reply), however, spelling this out seems to be appropriate for this doc.
> 
>    Correct, that's the idea. I'll add a sentence that states that a 
>    lisp-gpe next protocol header can be used to extend the lisp data-plane 
>    functions.
> 
> 
>    Thanks,
>    Fabio
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05.txt - draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-13.txt.pdf>