Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03 available for discussion (but not posted)

Speaking personally, I have some concerns about this.

I think my concerns can be lumped into two related categories.  Bother 
are about interoperability.

Firstly, I find the registration of LCAFs without any explanation of how 
or why they would be used to be awkward.  I know that some members of 
the WG like to have everything in one document.  But this is why we 
maintain registries.  Once we have defined LCAFs, it is quite sensible 
for documents which need LCAFs to add them to the registry, with the 
explanation of how and why the particular LCAF is beign defined.
Note that unlike base protocol mechanisms, the set of LCAFs is not 
something that all implementations need to understand.  A LISP 
implementation that is never going to do 5-tuple lookup does not need to 
know about LCAFs that are designed to handle that.  And conversely 
defining new LCAFs ought in my view create an obligation for new 
behavior in all LISP devices.  (I don't think the authors intend that 
kind of obligation.)

On a related note, I find very general LCAFs a cause for concern. 
Particular the JSON LCAF, which seems to allow the mapping system to 
reprogram the packet processing hardware on the fly seems excessive.  I 
understand it is neat for experimentation.  But how does something 
injecting a JSON LCAF have a reasonable judgment about whether the ITR 
which will receive it will be able to implement the processing required? 
  If we are assuming particular deployment models, we need to describe 
that.  (Which leads to the question as to why it is in this document.)

I may be in the rough on these concerns.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/10/13 12:35 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Folks, I compiled all the input I received for updates to the LCAF draft. Find enclosed the updated draft and a diff file.
>
> Deadline is tomorrow but we can have discussion before I post. So if there are any changes or comments, I can add them into the -03 draft. So I am not that worried about missing the deadline.
>
> Changes include:
>
> B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt
>
>     o  Submitted September 2013.
>
>     o  Updated references and author's affliations.
>
>     o  Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative
>        ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN.
>
>     o  Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type.
>
>     o  Add a new JSON LCAF Type.
>
>     o  Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached
>        to an address.
>
> Dino
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>