Re: [lisp] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 27 September 2018 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.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 CA141130DEA; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ixdx4kwi_iJW; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x443.google.com (mail-pf1-x443.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::443]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01B3127332; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x443.google.com with SMTP id a23-v6so2757652pfi.12; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ul0mkXXAJnpZqAcWL+Il2MFTQ7/pM47rlDLMi+MxYp0=; b=g7bs1X1MqKDBHEfUbi6eoVcElP8khJyovjBFIUkcqvkF3S578qNdmzvGSvw3z4AxJM 7itB7RUYn0O9i4lJGDFqlFOFEPkN4uS8p0rpNCKw1PqCToPsT2a6qfwIiBFJRKV6D1Gt 6vrkKvGyGjwZNzAqc8isa3kEkwjmFBpISro6FsuU7jXZu++irXD2G1qHhEEhKSjHKC5P 3Bejb98SWes0C94jng5wiJjxAGE83f12iUpIfC5bYIGGh466cqOjgydxraBwiJY5VHIG RBM3NouWtHLBcpZC5X26bOgNWVPzCwKb9JG0e7OtxUXM4PPOhu/Mbl0KBrpUuWpmLtZj wW5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ul0mkXXAJnpZqAcWL+Il2MFTQ7/pM47rlDLMi+MxYp0=; b=FKoOqMb1JLf6aCxmoZnmX7xkWZUU1aNtPFkoE6JkfNN9lCqSAnwLi8OaGpBeWWz0t4 zzBbsbp1alESu/Z2Db1P1zxPEZEhD/p3TH4LX8yPFI6LnDW9Gi4XvtT24ZZSotI2VT6M GgOo6b4j5G+fvuhRSdHAEwnjgJFb8RGHFnrcmGd9bQQS+2j9Qm/Hc50+t9M7t/QxhkdJ P5EIDiRK8ps6ibrxGw2l5Dubd1mAvfIk3dmVB7jeeHrcD/Tw7tuqFiAb7T+/9SquL+yK KiyzrUWhnVdsCYgM6oyMYWW5WrvIEFNWyF0VxRdtou/Nx2OBlWk5/aTnnuQ3vgMA48QO hT5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohvAVpD4L7Fn44MVLK7xOri6pTCTXdlVnzTe2pTQoSg2BgmDavV hNm8oMlZ7ic1+DecdRzfQqs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV638g3+fP9S/RZtUefuflkhOJfdtV0pCC3Wnrz12YNqV62Y87ABHq62ilXKew7SAvlsfzuLudw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a441:: with SMTP id c1-v6mr12184592pgp.182.1538083859513; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.31.99.184] (96-86-164-193-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [96.86.164.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k1-v6sm4404688pfi.62.2018.09.27.14.30.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <153805484850.26528.17792859473676071054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:30:56 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AEAD6792-F23E-47B4-A8EB-0E7A561A0E95@gmail.com>
References: <153805484850.26528.17792859473676071054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/KEHftQrH6KpqFiuDblRp0LBtEqQ>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:31:02 -0000

I fixed all the comments you had in the COMMENT section.

Dino

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have a list of smaller points that should be relatively easy to address. The
> two main ones:
> 
> I believe [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] needs to be a Normative Reference for this
> document. This will address some of the issues raised by Benjamin, but will
> also make description of various security bits meaningful.
> 
> Similarly, in Section 5.6:
> 
>   I: This is the xTR-ID bit.  When this bit is set, what is appended to
>      the Map-Register is a 128-bit xTR router-ID and then a 64-bit
>      site-ID.  See LISP NAT-Traversal procedures in
>      [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details.
> 
> This description makes [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] a normative reference.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   By using this Control-Plane service interface and communicating with
>   Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
>   Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of
>   mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different
>   database designs.  Since these devices implement the "edge" of the
>   LISP Control-Plane infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable
>   Internet end sites, and comprising the bulk of LISP-speaking devices,
>   reducing their implementation and operational complexity should also
>   reduce the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP.
> 
> The last sentence: I've reread it several times and still not sure what it says.
> I suggest rewording, possibly breaking up into shorter sentences.
> 
> In Section 5.1 the acronym SMR is used before it is defined (It is defined on
> the next page).
> 
> In 5.2:
> 
>   A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map-
>      Requests sent by an ITR.  It is set to 1 when an ITR wants the
>      destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping
>      database system.
> 
> This sentence seems to be missing a word at the end, because you don't return
> "the mapping database system".
> 
> In Section 5.6:
> 
>   T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit.  When set to 1, the xTR wants
>      the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the
>      "Record TTL" field of this message.
> 
> And what happens when it is 0?
> 
> 11.4.  LISP Address Type Codes
> 
>   Therefore, there is no longer a need for the "LISP Address Type
>   Codes" registry requested by [RFC6830].  This document requests to
>   remove it.
> 
> IANA registries are not supposed to be removed, they typically declared closed
> when not needed. Can you elaborate of whether this registry was ever used?
> 
>