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

"Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <fmaino@cisco.com> Wed, 08 January 2020 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.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 371B112012A; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:13:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, 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 header.b=bZej/FRY; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=iV80pSak
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 VJfrC-1KJErS; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0094912003E; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:13:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7858; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1578517993; x=1579727593; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=mk0v4VGRvG8Ea9IOZN9OLQ3434MuYXPfDiwUDwEwmYs=; b=bZej/FRYDHXPnlWY29ivCrGL6Q7O1wb2Y8mD33cnqYQM8n/gTUA2Rq2Q DYOfaQc+X9JO/iz9uoTzaRBVBbeHf2emVpWlaufr6YmPEsdz/8E/19TU9 ktZTihn6Oeex67Cd7vBaKVpwuyIJ7Mgdwvt4KKmpQJ6Bvjj3bTMjGreLn s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AQqtkzR+sig8XF/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+/bR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVcCAAEz9K9bhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoBQCQRBZe/4UNJK1mHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgXyBVCknBWxYIAQLKoQJg0YDinyCOiWBAZcMgUKBEANUCQEBAQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BASMKAgEBhEACF4FTJDgTAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFXgEBAQECARIREQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BASkOAQQLAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFQULAgQOBRsHgwABgkYDDiABAgygYAKBOIh?= =?us-ascii?q?hdYEygn4BAQWBSUGDDxiCDAMGgQ4ojBkagUE/gREnDBSCFzU+gmQCAQIBgSw?= =?us-ascii?q?BEgEfOAKCVjKCLI1Vgjg5nmUKgjaHNoR9iW8bgkeHfotahEODR4sOgUmHDpI?= =?us-ascii?q?RAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpImdYEQhwFWUBgkFQGA2NEgwXFW8BCIJDhRSFP3QBgSe?= =?us-ascii?q?NIYIyAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,411,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="693893431"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Jan 2020 21:13:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 008LDB8Q015097 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 21:13:11 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:13:11 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:13:10 -0600
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:13:10 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=h+EnDDIWEezTxPtnt0/vU7ZwI2vugx9LGNNDnXkGCp5SzFCijOx9OSDO9BulhkSQ6L3tP97aTWTbUAB74SU7quwNhk+HD41L9eWhWaCBvb5jEADoc0xjVFkAybxVMuOfFxS8Yf0z11m4WnNA5onfQL3qzLbBCD8I6PgDzDDVn4y1VdBZnKzruoYZUzD4ZFmR8/n+TVjz/U+mM2g8gDUazUT/MiNg0HA3rV/SCdKdhzb1upaLq9kLfi5z0JasSJUquMEEbl23jqqwYJO/Y2v9VTVzcIZr0WI5djiWAfSMuFjBdjOjQAHvOfKb+jbOSB3zNibhYRhWiIcWsc2DaPlYZQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mk0v4VGRvG8Ea9IOZN9OLQ3434MuYXPfDiwUDwEwmYs=; b=iH+CDwp/YG7EtoIoZAWDPsO9OOltkT7828cdqm0IWkDsZsqAXGzMKlI0M7iLTgCtA8+yOWyOVk/1XewURtRGRnYRDDWfTPah3TXT7BVVZfcG9jmk7b+XLH3b3F5bH2I4iOWJfRctrJos7QfgJsqoe7BBmb34U7roKqKKJJEBTNxxOc0pyZ00DIUM0e9tnCoQ2ZMkuPpMVdZrUlrgt5slPJkjg3x6nWHGt9pQPdybZpPFsp9i975VtBsJEQLGWADbX4F9woa51Uq+0QPNS6acuPBiDNInZkwPP5JrsGlhDFjECQyQ10fN00cjSrnF3Tw/gluzOjO1uJVCsw0P0pKm3w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mk0v4VGRvG8Ea9IOZN9OLQ3434MuYXPfDiwUDwEwmYs=; b=iV80pSakPHI+V3eoZzWrKB6IAkHd4vLwLGXQu8xrwm/4tpZqcdS+ybHyRPE4XZ1MQkLDfoyI+y2/gcDcoIykBea0J+pdY4DVUFEjc/wLAnh50xble3w+yZr3MJLBDShxYQvk1NtkQ/Uaz7wOjPyjh3pVBbWK4tSgZofKOJXwFF0=
Received: from BY5PR11MB4420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.132.255.20) by BY5PR11MB4165.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.162.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2602.13; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 21:13:08 +0000
Received: from BY5PR11MB4420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cc2a:491c:a377:bc18]) by BY5PR11MB4420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cc2a:491c:a377:bc18%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2602.016; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 21:13:08 +0000
From: "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <fmaino@cisco.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.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: AQHUUFDdrGXy7u5t8UK1eJZx5YzeLqT5fQ2Agui5L4CAAUP9gIAAL+IA
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 21:13:08 +0000
Message-ID: <358BED1E-C4F3-4FDD-8153-13C45908FDE9@cisco.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:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.20.0.191208
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=fmaino@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:30a:4e05:15c:a22d:632b:c69f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 115b4b45-2d69-40e5-2aba-08d7947f8faf
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR11MB4165:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR11MB41655686D298EA1D1971C214C23E0@BY5PR11MB4165.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 02760F0D1C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(346002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(51914003)(189003)(199004)(71200400001)(81156014)(66574012)(81166006)(5660300002)(2906002)(53546011)(966005)(6506007)(478600001)(36756003)(33656002)(6512007)(186003)(86362001)(4326008)(6486002)(2616005)(64756008)(8936002)(110136005)(76116006)(66446008)(66556008)(316002)(224303003)(54906003)(66476007)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY5PR11MB4165; H:BY5PR11MB4420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3592F96903DE0B43BBDC5A6A70E9DD29@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 115b4b45-2d69-40e5-2aba-08d7947f8faf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jan 2020 21:13:08.7264 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tMnQkplWcbdhrPmxCwqEKO6OfYM+T4YRZN7vE8N4Nf4QuUYCPxSsIxLgI5PIfdHYOMQGvGa4Ctnpn3QNZSWmKQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR11MB4165
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.19, xch-rcd-009.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/NhLXC2Dw9mN_Nkq3ot1E1e9F-aw>
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: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 21:13:16 -0000

Thanks for the quick turnaround Mirja. 

I'll add text that refers to the Reserved field in the the next rev. 

Thanks,
Fabio



On 1/8/20, 2:22 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

    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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
    > , https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/ ).
    > 
    > Could you please take a look at the latest rev -13 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/, 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://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-gpe/
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> 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>