[lisp] Re: Review draft-ietf-lisp-te

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2024 22:34 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 4060AC1DA1E9; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSP1aKwSn4WG; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E24C1D8768; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1f68834bfdfso3845925ad.3; Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717454082; x=1718058882; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sw/Y5wmd7U43wY8Etataqv/oBpMacBJWWIZUjctumKY=; b=F5YrWpBtw5++5osfEtcDvIh5Su71qSppmIv+8qBWULPCgt6wtQ4vWUuKxBjAQhOucV xZGvjFrdNFcKJYKYe+tYX6XtN5jDWW2kBCj6gervG+vSb4/BQo5TojqGl8kDmNsxhJqn mFEHx9ytnvE0AThc29cMuZqrvzLbdPvKQa6l21zU+9OQmBCCRqktUgtw2gLeQSG9Tdyj qwFCAp6ixnr7y+8X4c1hN1WLBcFYGNlatSkZunLRx2PdVg4mLusNgbUsd/nOTbzCPCpI LZ6KpW5QubTot1gb8T9VKkOui7+M94n2j6Od9HYVy/GgFN1rOBA8Omr558A3sd6RItGl RVVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717454082; x=1718058882; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sw/Y5wmd7U43wY8Etataqv/oBpMacBJWWIZUjctumKY=; b=hzEthyAgOwAJciD5dPVv9yfjwQCeb3/OwbALNmKIwr+Az4PEJhg9XrC3o+W8n1ZH8k DiDeATV4JK1D2YJK9jIx/FrWEUUgX6Q/aDSD1VAFxvXfkZ7qtT5+1fFr0Ti9EqjK2Pns iEIxiInv5BiD5B0lyB0C+Py86cRxcQHwDeNUk5kgqwNd3hwDc6bnoQR8dXNixinIOMCc s0wJw3fGd3DTHDcU3x97W701xHN3srdbPdWccMxl9KHclKfQdmqUVm8fBsCsK5EAb2Ax vOz1MUfpEwr4OyxGi8/thWYQKrVuJI9d1U1ullYIr4cH1vFTHzI34jbInbezJEeIlBGm CQcA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVhBstDwboXuA5q++x7aOBKlZ/x3+YFnkJNpnwjuadFEcwp/CED7F+/sVvevSaWXZwzrPWaJzHWzwK3gBI9oK1IMkN226QEjgUUkev5g4xQtYMqYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxh0QP1zG+UXghFS+zAoG7l8GgCUdQrhvTBMu5vnpEleNPunsji 83vUHYK4WYZjobvlbWTpbWTniD0h9MsT7fvU0dWkP90RRy23rlK9ipT4cw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGmegFOVHYnB/r4k8eik7YiIprQylE482fgpKx4ZHwPzgDAlt1txcMPct61gKH5B71J/sgm8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c40d:b0:1e4:7adf:b85d with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1f636fedfa5mr137044825ad.17.1717454082072; Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2603:3024:1519:a000:6c16:5dc5:6ee2:b8c0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-1f63232dcd0sm70230245ad.52.2024.06.03.15.34.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG-CQxpwxy5xdCz5rve_Yz8_etFe9Er5AMofV614bceZV0F7bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:34:31 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8FA390D1-5CC7-480E-B0CC-3073435EC31B@gmail.com>
References: <E3147CD9-B983-41D3-B93B-182EF92FAD83@gigix.net> <C1FD2E57-E391-4D81-92E5-94BFF7BD7DEA@gmail.com> <3c2c6f9f-3326-4f38-8013-7abc7ec38a94@joelhalpern.com> <0E3C0CCE-33EA-4D65-9F96-F6F833F63D94@gmail.com> <CAG-CQxqH2pQWWpH80vTniENbS_S_+mW4WmiuffHRqgxmgP9o2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-CQxpwxy5xdCz5rve_Yz8_etFe9Er5AMofV614bceZV0F7bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Message-ID-Hash: V5RSCWEZTMSBYMTFWXJRVAB7AQD4ABNR
X-Message-ID-Hash: V5RSCWEZTMSBYMTFWXJRVAB7AQD4ABNR
X-MailFrom: farinacci@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-lisp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [lisp] Re: Review draft-ietf-lisp-te
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/QYp9-V6RRWHU3te1tgzRvE70tP4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:lisp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:lisp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:lisp-leave@ietf.org>

Thanks Padma, I will update the spec this week.

Dino

> On Jun 2, 2024, at 10:40 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Authors and all.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> 
> First of all - I think the document describes a useful feature in LISP. Thank you for writing this doc.
> 
> I reviewed this document after reading the ELP definition in RFC8060 section 4.6.
> My overall comment is that I was expecting the detailed processing of the ELP  as  RFC8060 references this document for "details".  Therefore, I find that the document would be improved if section 5 had  detailed processing for all cases. I have flagged in the document where some processing should  be included in different steps.
>  Here are major suggestions 
> - proposed a compromise to make the document clearer on figure 1 and figure 2 and text associated.
> - proposed to beef up section 5 need to add processing of L, S, P bits but more importantly perhaps give the processing with the combinations of bits.
> 
> I am attaching the diffs in PDF format as requested in exchanges. If inconvenient. I can transform the comments in txt.
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions
> 
> Thanks
> Padma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:33 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Dino and al
> 
> I will review the doc, comments, exchanges and get back to the list.
> Thanks for your patience 
> 
> Padma
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:31 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is correct.
> 
> Dino
> 
> > On May 30, 2024, at 9:53 AM, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> > 
> > The question, as I understand it, is not what you want Dino.  Nor is it what Luigi wants.  It is what the working group wants.  I gather that Padma has the task of figuring that out.   Good luck Padma.
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> > On 5/30/2024 12:17 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On May 30, 2024, at 6:07 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Dino,
> >>> 
> >>> Private emails, with insulting content, will not help progress the document.
> >> 
> >> I didn’t insult you. I made a conclusion you didn’t understand something since I repeated the explanation several times.  
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Since apparently we are not able to converge, my co-chair Padma accepted to handle this document from now on.
> >> 
> >> Just because commenters have comments doesn’t mean all of them need fixing. And we need to agree to disagree. 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Please wait her review of the draft.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> As a participant of the LISP WG, and with no hats on, my concerns remain unaddressed (despite proposing very detailed and easy fixes). 
> >>> 
> >>> Second example in  section 4 remains unclear and misleading. See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/CzJjLCgCZquCPOkhv56-q3DZTRE/
> >>> 
> >>> The general organisation of the document can be improved.
> >>> As of now it is a bunch of use cases where for each one we see the same structure:
> >>> 
> >>> Here is a cool thing you can do using LISP ELPs….  
> >>> In order to do it you MUST do this or SHOULD do that….. 
> >>> 
> >>> In other words the specifications that need to be implemented are scattered all over the document. The risk is that people interested in one single use case will implement only part of the specs.
> >> 
> >> I implemented it and so did cisco with no problems. 
> >> 
> >>> My suggestion is to move a few paragraph in one single place so to have the document organized in two main parts: A section with all the specifications; A section with all the use cases.
> >>> My first review included detailed suggestions of the few simple cut & paste to be done: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3zIUevHl8ZbqfKgwjXhJ8Z-FUlA/
> >> 
> >> Yes I know what you commented on. I don’t want to make the changes. I want to focus on all the documents that I am responsible for and this document is just not as important as the other ones. 
> >> 
> >> We have a real deadline now. I won’t be doing IETF after 2025. So now we have to be laser focused and not take > 5 years to move documents forward. 
> >> 
> >> Dino
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-leave@ietf.org
> >> 
> 
> <draft-ietf-lisp-te-16-ppe.pdf>