Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
"Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <natal@cisco.com> Sun, 06 November 2022 10:32 UTC
Return-Path: <natal@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 555E4C14E514; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 02:32:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.903 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=WXqgZEcd; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=NB2cK/z2
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 pCyAKr9Qu0tt; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 02:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55BBAC14F730; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 02:32:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=86071; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1667730767; x=1668940367; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Tf8PoAIopKicWHZS64aX3iDerUCH/AGk6e14IpMobco=; b=WXqgZEcdCAU4zFafhaPtTldthrSQVCcANlr5ejE1C8Hj8MzzBUA8oKUI Rpf5pT4hs5329Oh0CMLPPNWK0tb3euQ4CYhu3awG3aBiY0OEHSFQZCGXb 0btC3P0lfxcUHfEpMeMbOzdcrKf7Cq5jQNvKaalrpGyRUDYLrxqtjUHho s=;
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:+4H9qxD31H+nk/7o7DMwUyQVaBdPi9zP1kY95pkmjudIdaKut9TnMVfE7PpgxFnOQc3A6v1ChuaX1sKoWWEJ7Zub9nxXdptKWkwJjMwMlFkmB8iIQUTwMP/taXk8G8JPHF9o9n22Kw5bAsH7MlbTuXa1qzUVH0aXCA==
IronPort-Data: A9a23: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
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23: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
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: 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
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,230,1647302400"; d="scan'208,217";a="1095531878"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Nov 2022 10:32:44 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xfe-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.227.250]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 2A6AWirG002371 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 6 Nov 2022 10:32:44 GMT
Received: from xfe-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.251) by xfe-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.9; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 04:32:44 -0600
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xfe-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.251) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.9 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 04:32:44 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SvCD+baI8J4HfpTjcdf9XDs97p8cZrTEOfNM79luBF8bmYD+4oxgJcz6BHY/XWZo9Yam2YmIFVQou49c/RbW6FK/gDcYDP5JD2vhjM8BvUY/7ueKGB2rHG4GhH0wZ2Wx2RM8FYAF8jg42p28VsY6gOfScof0lRCUizZkXMgRRoS2wdJ4mgA3OpTbU1Ls9/HtP0gYZ3HxNgCxAuJwLwbNVKqTwlvVIggTK212aGOT9fbBADRrdD5fhA4qus4sct6Jmz8XouBH4U0JhRq1zZwxX/nUHy0JPI58en6oyvqk20TQjK/993z0qKKlcLCby4OlkTBIPcthERc8+GsRkFUxgA==
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-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=/cQXkKr0U2kHWAKXz3giSsdPwIo7BJQHCYyKbmBNPjI=; b=aogCfTVQ1Bdop+sLi5f2ZTiUHDAjdF+C3c3iXYEROrFNRPUbb8K/dqwUk9sqBJN+NyoCksPqbZkfsQUeDN17tvO1xwz9vff/OJ4P4BtO3YmRK36uD973vThmEiIdd/vAKRI+gnLyQ5vYtLxlRxnkcNaez6uSNsDllSA5FYrY0KNWd/HMz8x+uk5JjqSHL7EiVTI4ttuACn6Az271FNOo7Wuw3Yq/2BZa2lvlt0vRGsFJNslMjhxP0UzHtv9MW25lDOy7ILe9HPeWuYsD3XIDCRsCbTOjqF12K4RKH6oQq5n2pwsZFa1OHd9bVT+28o8DeCn11kQxBuenDSnkgn7FyQ==
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=/cQXkKr0U2kHWAKXz3giSsdPwIo7BJQHCYyKbmBNPjI=; b=NB2cK/z2Vy1fEh+BhaAhKhsy+hO1XSDbos823y6b/c+l7Tw9eBLfrnG+oVSKeOwWH7t3DiLdD4buAVS1xMev8H2nA319UAjWgIGVsjVPTccQ87TU+4/qAkf4xTe+5muYi39DyfT2SHkMR0Lq7dJnA0V/p28nuC9yTRGWr54oUkI=
Received: from BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:83::30) by DM4PR11MB6041.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:8:60::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5791.22; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 10:32:36 +0000
Received: from BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ed52:2c9b:20c5:a512]) by BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ed52:2c9b:20c5:a512%3]) with mapi id 15.20.5791.025; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 10:32:36 +0000
From: "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <natal@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
CC: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <fmaino@cisco.com>, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Johnson Leong <johnsonleong@gmail.com>, JACQUENET Christian INNOV/NET <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
Thread-Index: AQHYWO/8n8IknWRb5U+BtlMvk4K2r64eoaSvgBQ/pTE=
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 10:32:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BN8PR11MB3588A92BEE89699E39F6503DB63D9@BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsyB6WXxZP-CxQ6xzYQ6rRC86TQPT+PDqc3+qvR364qdCw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3591E2378CCEA32D8697F002B62E9@BYAPR11MB3591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3591E2378CCEA32D8697F002B62E9@BYAPR11MB3591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN8PR11MB3588:EE_|DM4PR11MB6041:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 16bddb29-44ae-4aa2-1cb0-08dabfe238ed
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230022)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(451199015)(76116006)(122000001)(38070700005)(66899015)(38100700002)(33656002)(83380400001)(7416002)(5660300002)(86362001)(52536014)(8936002)(30864003)(66946007)(41300700001)(186003)(66556008)(4326008)(55016003)(6506007)(66476007)(8676002)(66446008)(64756008)(26005)(9686003)(53546011)(110136005)(2906002)(7696005)(6666004)(71200400001)(316002)(478600001)(54906003)(91956017)(21314003)(559001)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: JtjWUUKLqJXKG004tyBwTuNzW/lEpxucrGtPln5qA02ceQ5k6+sWfYJe641gMwB22UnfRFYtkKbLMdbokD0C+9/laDV84kLBxII1AtNPrLH1e9bAsUdKAtmVy3jf5l0vRKPfgHnlipezrr/734xCQ61cQN/mziHZ6UW/w89ibgi5fIVB56rSdyQFLCepiYBh7IMtxPPXWUK92zeyS3TrqPw09F/+KZKcefhq73HUzMXAC78Z2ZRf6qBddUi0lFgRXvgjl1Xl7+MEXV4OTiK3AuZ95KLALDIMjC0X6PTPB5KpDC68FsgVmaHcsBGWJpqGP7wqUWNGwTIlZOp2r2BU72d117Dk7lhdGjEU7OGzG4U+saAHu6HROtimTdOzLnpk6TdO4fYTRD66hwGAoPWc5YOMsPYmO9ndoNUqXqL/QFtOtIEPcMVqzrxWwNj5c5Yb5s36LiMyvpFNnSZoIdKUzmKa7lCBv56ZZzhV8adYo8xzRPbutWvYy24JdqHiDvX+VHYywvQU9Ks2QNALrFEmS9z0FcbY+jtZ1hNbk7/gjND5+DrwVYjberEwtnaypZtigakquz3UG4lKNXszspWU/oRUNm0H/XSeikQ3ueyqKCJcJP5DQRaJqkbMoT4cW2U6HFzI4FVD6pxG3sp0anOzvuHckFDyQn2rO3Zv9LDipyaYaCOMfICDlkvu6DgPGmAySmgwp9O4slCvCwpleXy2X12iAA8ow8avSDPKpPeqWx4ffqwVWzIzgH6unlts05JpGJpA3tqR4Zk7mpNIYDrfmrDQ0NnN0MXEIIz+Z0wo71dHhrLZ1ic6ug+ZhdeFRY30R6gUMR5k8cdVG1F4yIA/m2/FlgD8ugaBAchyi1xDMGYErkmKKqS+zeyBGFbP22YlB45Z3ZcA7dxA50O9l8MfqyyiDpEL89fBPmSNHuANOCu5V9eWq91JJGdGlbCFbdcRBgB6DLF1EwfgPwD3ChlOEuAuJafHKLye4noWvStOkntktelK8fAXbkEeQuX03+IwQQi7LxarNQIZds6IZsODxCWzk9nRNC4RxYngDjWV1cMIgk+W3Ldnwd3ONQuROl6xJr8PoKSrHrbn4vJdB2r2VlsUeo8+STErZWDZJ6Z89RQXZqf64CQR3jxoVs1x26wAnLiYjNBbBk4Fv5Blztr+vVka0kTTgmvlhCKIA8u1bgfnGSuTL+y6qUvOANSwTwHYMQ+6w2ffbSVvq5MNYuPBD3iI/CR/JzVmp+c6R3q7moeB/HiKMOvH+IF5wi8s22TkS8aCWM9ia1uuymrsA59ip1dvVVZIRkfPZfdIxymx1c6965xsmlJmwfenOfOaWCAxcc+z2ZKnQ40dJmNhQuKY4Dyo2UCRGCKvf0V+UVdT0eMSkQDVGsI8E72S4pnT5Drc86p/c9RAm7q/Seuca9484/1C9fvsy/vCoISw6NsSNlgsnK1giLmsu/s4JIrIGMDdL1Tr6j00qHVWeUMuK7q0EkC/jMh83QmAqvHKRWYoqLAb/UyqMdE+I9pnf5OGcpv8KSMQulmCphbEkj4DaNXYWFTG1JQqNDbRyxiCE9/wXJs=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN8PR11MB3588A92BEE89699E39F6503DB63D9BN8PR11MB3588namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8PR11MB3588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 16bddb29-44ae-4aa2-1cb0-08dabfe238ed
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Nov 2022 10:32:36.4611 (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: Y3AUdagfFLi+9pk7KImMMtHOMWGYJEwGakMcdPwJoDZIgIHY12vFxGSo/+BFy/hr
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR11MB6041
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.227.250, xfe-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ZOmn_INdXIHTrvSde1O0nRaRFA0>
Subject: Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 10:32:52 -0000
Hi Alvaro, Thanks again for your review and apologies for the delayed response! Please find comments inline. There was some conversation on the list between you and Dino where some agreements were made. Below I refer to the outcome of that conversation as “Alvaro/Dino discussion” where appropriate. Thanks! Alberto From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April25 2022 at 6:01 PM To: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub@ietf.org <draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub@ietf.org> Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org> Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dear authors: Thank you for your work on this document! I have several comments inline (see below). I will wait for a revised ID before moving this document forward. Please reply inline to this message to expedite my review of any updates. This document currently has an intended status of Experimental. What is the experiment? How would you know if the experiment has been successful? When deploying this extension, what would you want operators to experiment with? Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 129 3. Deployment Assumptions 131 The specification described in this document makes the following 132 deployment assumptions: 134 (1) A unique 128-bit xTR-ID (plus a 64-bit Site-ID) identifier is 135 assigned to each xTR. 137 (2) Map-Servers are configured in proxy-reply mode, i.e., they are 138 solicited to generate and send Map-Reply messages for the 139 mappings they are serving. [major] This is the only place, including rfc6830bis/rfc6833bis, where "proxy-reply mode" is used. Is this operation specified anywhere, maybe using a different name? This seems to be related to the Map-Server being able to offer non-authoritative Map-Replies -- please be specific. [AR] As per the Alvaro/Dino discussion, we’re updating the PubSub doc to be consistent with 9301(6833bis) regarding proxy Map-Reply. [major] What happens if one of these assumptions is not met? If the rest of the specification is followed (setting the I and N bits, etc.) what are the "failure scenarios" if the conditions are not met? [AR] If the xTR-ID is not included, the Map-Request will be processed as a regular one. If the Map-Server is not proxy-replying, the Map-Request will be forwarded to the ETR (as per 9301) and any PubSub details on the Map-Request will be ignored by the ETR. Following the Alvaro/Dino discussion, we’re adding the text: “If either assumption is not met, a subscription cannot be established, and the network will continue operating without this enhancement.” 141 The distribution of xTR-IDs (and Site-IDs) are out of the scope of 142 this document. [minor] s/distribution/configuration [AR] Ack 144 4. Map-Request PubSub Additions ... 190 xTR-ID bit (I-bit): This bit is set to 1 to indicate that a 128 191 bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are present at the end of 192 the Map-Request message. For PubSub operation, an xTR MUST be 193 configured with an xTR-ID and Site-ID, and it MUST set the I bit 194 to 1 and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Request 195 messages it generates. [nit] s/I bit/I-bit [AR] Ack [major] "MUST set the I bit to 1 and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID" What should the receiver do if the I bit is set but the ID fields are not included? [AR] As per the Alvaro/Dino discussion, we’re adding some text along the lines of: “If the I-bit is set but the Site-ID and/or xTR-ID are not included, a receiver can detect the error because after processing that last EID-record, there are no bytes left from processing the message. The receiver will log a malformed Map-Request and drop the message.” [major] IANA hasn't assigned this bit yet. Please include a note with a forward reference to §10. [AR] Ack 197 Notification-Requested bit (N-bit): The N-bit of an EID-record is 198 set to 1 to specify that the xTR wants to be notified of updates 199 for that mapping record. [nit] This text, and others, talk about notification, which is correct. However, the document is called "pubsub", so it might be nice to remain consistent throughout can call this a "subscription". [AR] Both lowercase ‘s’ and uppercase ‘S’ were already taken in the Map-Request, that’s why the bit is called ‘N’ and hence the name of the bit is “Notification-Requested bit”. 201 xTR-ID field: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map- 202 Request message, starting after the final Record in the message 203 (or the Map-Reply Record, if present). The xTR-ID is used to 204 uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message. The xTR-ID 205 is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [minor] Some of the description already exists in rfc6833bis. Please don't duplicate the specification. NEW> xTR-ID field: If the I-bit is set, this field if added at the end of the Map-Request message, starting after the final Record in the message (or the Map-Reply Record, if present). The xTR-ID is specified in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [AR] Ack 207 Site-ID field: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map- 208 Request message, following the xTR-ID. Site-ID is used by the 209 Map-Server receiving the Map-Request message to identify which 210 xTRs belong to the same site. The Site-ID is defined in 211 Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [minor] Same as above. NEW> Site-ID field: If the I-bit is set, this field is added at the end of the Map-Request message, following the xTR-ID. The Site-ID is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [AR] Ack 213 5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures 215 The xTR subscribes for changes for a given EID-prefix by sending a 216 Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the EID- 217 Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to Section 5.3 of 218 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] but also does the following: 220 (1) The xTR MUST set the I-bit to 1 and append its xTR-ID and Site- 221 ID to the Map-Request. The xTR-ID uniquely identifies the xTR. 223 (2) The xTR MUST set the N-bit to 1 for each EID-Record to which the 224 xTR wants to subscribe. [minor] If I understand correctly, it is ok for a Map-Request to have the I-bit set (+ xTR-ID + Site-ID), but include no records with the N-bit set. Is that right? If so, the mention of the N-bit in the intro paragraph makes that a little confusing. [AR] This is technically correct, a Map-Request could have the I-bit set (+ xTR-ID + Site-ID) and yet not include any records with the N-bit set. This is still conformant with the specification, if no N-bit is set in the Map-Request, the message will just be processed as a regular Map-Request according to 9301 (the I-bit and IDs will just be ignored). ... 241 Notify message back to the xTR to acknowledge the successful 242 subscription. The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in 243 Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify 244 with the following considerations: [major] The "MUST...with the following considerations" construct reads as exceptions to an absolute requirement. There's no need to require using the base spec -- it is assumed! Also, there are some recommendations (SHOULDs) in rfc6833bis which end up in a Normative conflict with a requirement. OLD> The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify with the following considerations: NEW> The Map-Server builds the Map-Notify according to Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following considerations: [AR] Ack, thanks! ... 253 (3) The Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to one of the ITR-RLOCs 254 received in the Map-Request (which one is implementation 255 specific). [major] Does this need to be specified here? Where are Map-Notify messages sent to? I couldn't find a specific answer, but it seems to me that choosing a destination address should be pretty "basic"; i.e. something that should have been specified in the base spec. [AR] As mentioned in the Alvaro/Dino discussion, regular Map-Notifies as per 9301 are sent to the source IP address of the Map-Register that triggered them. Since PubSub extends LISP to specify that Map-Notifies can also be triggered by Map-Requests, we need to specify where these Map-Request-triggered Map-Notifies are sent to. 257 When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce that matches one in 258 the list of outstanding Map-Request messages sent with an N-bit set, 259 it knows that the Map-Notify is to acknowledge a successful 260 subscription. The xTR processes this Map-Notify as described in 261 Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following 262 considerations. The xTR MUST use its security association with the 263 Map-Server (see Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on 264 the Map-Notify. The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map- 265 cache with the returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set. [minor] "MUST use its security association" I know that the first mention was related to the Map-Server and that now the same phrase is used with respect to the xTR. It might be better if the security statement (for the relationship) was made only once. [AR] Maybe we can move the second mention right after the first one? OLD> (2) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR (see Section 7.1) to compute the authentication data of the Map- Notify. NEW> (2) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR (see Section 7.1) to sign the authentication data of the Map- Notify. The xTR MUST use the security association to verify the received authentication data. 267 The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID- 268 Record may fail for a number of reasons. For example, because of 269 local configuration policies (such as accept and drop lists of 270 subscribers), or because the Map-Server has exhausted the resources 271 to dedicate to the subscription of that EID-Record (e.g., the number 272 of subscribers excess the capacity of the Map-Server). [nit] s/The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID-Record may fail for a number of reasons./The subscription of an xTR-ID may fail for a number of reasons. [AR] Ack ... 279 If an xTR-ID is successfully added to the list of subscribers for an 280 EID-Record, the Map-Server MUST extract the nonce and ITR-RLOCs 281 present in the Map-Request, and store the association between the 282 EID-Record, xTR-ID, ITR-RLOCs and nonce. Any already present state 283 regarding ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be 284 overwritten. [major] ...and a Map-Notify MUST be sent, right? The specification of the subscription seems incomplete. [AR] At this point the spec has already covered the part about sending the Map-Notify. I agree maybe this paragraph is not correctly located, maybe we can move it up, and relocate it right after the paragraph at line 233. ... 296 6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures ... 303 When a mapping stored in a Map-Server is updated (e.g., via a Map- 304 Register from an ETR), the Map-Server MUST notify the subscribers of 305 that mapping via sending Map-Notify messages with the most updated 306 mapping information. The Map-Notify message sent to each of the 307 subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact 308 encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of 309 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following: [major] "MUST...except for" is a Normative conflict. OLD> The Map-Notify message sent to each of the subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following: NEW> The Map-Notify message sent to each of the subscribers as a result of an update event follows the encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following: [AR] Ack, thanks! 311 (1) The Map-Notify MUST be sent to one of the ITR-RLOCs associated 312 with the xTR-ID of the subscriber (which one is implementation 313 specific). [major] Please see the related comment in §5. Also, please specify behavior only once. [AR] As discussed in the related comment in §5, sending Map-Notifies to ITR-RLOCs extracted from a Map-Request is new behavior introduced by PubSub. Please also note that while §5 talks about Map-Notifies sent to ack a subscription, §6 here talks about Map-Notifies sent as publication. Probably better to be explicit here IMHO. ... 331 When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR, 332 the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an 333 entry on its map-cache. Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify 334 messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR. 335 The xTR MUST keep track of the last nonce seen in a Map-Notify 336 received as a publication from the Map-Server for the EID-Record. If 337 a Map-Notify received as a publication has a nonce value that is not 338 greater than the saved nonce, the xTR drops the Map-Notify message 339 and logs the fact a replay attack could have occurred. To compare 340 two nonces, the xTR uses the serial number arithmetic defined in 341 [RFC1982] with SERIAL_BITS = 64. The nonce field space (64 bits) is 342 considered large enough to not be depleted during normal operation of 343 the protocol (e.g., assuming a fast publication rate of one Map- 344 Notify per EID-Record per Map-Server per second, the nonce field 345 space will not be depleted in 0.5 trillion years). The same 346 considerations discussed in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 347 regarding storing Map-Register nonces apply here for Map-Notify 348 nonces. [major] "Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR." rfc6833bis added the Map-Notify-Ack, but it doesn't require configuration anywhere to process unsolicited Map-Notify messages. IOW, this requirement is not in line with rfc6833bis. [AR] Following Alvaro/Dino discussion, we’re removing this sentence from the doc. [major] "has a nonce value that is not greater than the saved nonce" #2 above says that the "Map-Server increments the nonce by one every time". Does this mean that the received nonce value has to be greater, but just by one? [AR] As long as the nonce is greater it is fine. It doesn’t need to be just by one (e.g. to cover cases where Map-Notifies might get lost on their way to the xTR). [major] "To compare two nonces, the xTR uses the serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] with SERIAL_BITS = 64." This sounds like something that should be specified in the base specification. I found at least one place in rfc6833bis (§5.6) where the nonce is also incremented and needs to be compared, but no specification of how. Maybe a pointer to §5.6 is enough. BTW, I know that some of the text was added in response to the SecDir review. I appreciate that, but, again, the text belongs in the base specification, not here. [AR] Sounds good, we’re updating the doc to simply point to §5.6 in 9301 as follows: OLD> […] To compare two nonces, the xTR uses the serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] with SERIAL_BITS = 64. The nonce field space (64 bits) is considered large enough to not be depleted during normal operation of the protocol (e.g., assuming a fast publication rate of one Map- Notify per EID-Record per Map-Server per second, the nonce field space will not be depleted in 0.5 trillion years). The same considerations discussed in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] regarding storing Map-Register nonces apply here for Map-Notify nonces. NEW> The same considerations discussed in Section 5.6 of [RFC9301] regarding Map-Register nonces apply here for Map-Notify nonces. 350 The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in Section 5.7 351 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations. 352 The xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see 353 Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify. 354 The xTR MUST use the mapping information carried in the Map-Notify to 355 update its internal map-cache. The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map- 356 Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in Section 5.7 of 357 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]), with the nonce from the Map-Notify, to 358 the Map-Server. If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has 359 not received back the Map-Notify-Ack, it can try to send the Map- 360 Notify to a different ITR-RLOC for that xTR-ID. If the Map-Server 361 tries all the ITR-RLOCs without receiving a response, it may stop 362 trying to send the Map-Notify. [major] "The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map-Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack..." This action is already specified in §5.7/rfc6833bis, but without the same normative language. In any case, please don't respecify behaviors here. [AR] Agreed, we’re removing this sentence from the doc. [major] "If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has not received back the Map-Notify-Ack..." §5.7/rfc6833bis talks about exponentially backed-off retransmissions. You shouldn't change the behavior here. [AR] Please note that 9301 does not talk about trying to send a Map-Notify to a different ITR-RLOC, since in 9301 Map-Notifies are not sent to ITR-RLOCs, hence the need to define this behavior here. 364 7. Security Considerations ... 369 In the particular case of PubSub, cache poisoning via malicious Map- 370 Notify messages is avoided by the use of nonce and the security 371 association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers. [?] Does all this apply to xTRs or just ITRs? [AR] Since ETR don’t have a cache, they are not subject to this. This only applies to ITRs (and other ITR-like entities, such as RTRs). In practice, it is rare to see an ETR that is not also an ITR, so it is fine to say xTR here, IMHO. 373 7.1. Security Association between ITR and MS [minor] I think this is the first place where "MS" is used. Please keep using the expanded form to avoid confusion. [AR] Ack, good catch! ... 424 7.2. DDoS Attack Mitigation 426 Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may 427 lead to exhaust the resources of Map-Servers. Furthermore, 428 frequently changing the state of a subscription may also be 429 considered as an attack vector. To mitigate such issues, xTRs SHOULD 430 rate-limit Map-Requests and Map-Servers SHOULD rate-limit Map- 431 Notifies. Rate-limiting Map-Requests is discussed in Section 5.3 of 433 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the same guidelines apply here. To 434 rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one 435 Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID. This parameter MUST be 436 configurable. Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is 437 met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard 438 additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID. Similarly, for 439 pending mapping updates that need to be notified to that xTR-ID, the 440 Map-Server will combine them into a single Map-Notify (with multiple 441 EID-records) which it will send when the rate-limit mechanism allows 442 it to transmit again Map-Notifies to that xTR-ID. [major] "SHOULD rate-limit Map-Requests...discussed in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]" §5.3/rfc6833bis requires rate-limiting, so the recommendation here is not in line with that. Please don't attempt to specify things here again. [AR] Fair point, we’re updating the text, see next comment. [major] "SHOULD rate-limit Map-Notifies...a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID." §5.7/rfc6833bis already talks about sending unsolicited Map-Notify message only in conformance with rfc8085. I see no reason to specify somehting different for this case. Is there one? [AR] Following your comment here and above, we’re updating the text as follows: OLD> Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may lead to exhaust the resources of Map-Servers. Furthermore, frequently changing the state of a subscription may also be considered as an attack vector. To mitigate such issues, xTRs SHOULD rate-limit Map-Requests and Map-Servers SHOULD rate-limit Map- Notifies. Rate-limiting Map-Requests is discussed in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the same guidelines apply here. To rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID. This parameter MUST be configurable. NEW> Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may lead to exhaust the resources of Map-Servers. Furthermore, frequently changing the state of a subscription may also be considered as an attack vector. To mitigate such issues, Section 5.3 of [RFC9301] discusses rate-limiting Map-Requests and Section 5.7 of [RFC9301] discusses rate-limiting Map-Notifies. [nit] There's an extra space between lines 431 and 433. [AR] Ack [major] "when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is met...the Map-Server will silently discard additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID." Is meeting the threshold considered a subscription failure? It sounds like one to me! §5 talks about what to do it the subscription fails, but it is not to "silently discard additional subscription requests". I'm assuming that a Map-Reply should be sent in this case, right? [AR] Good point, how about this? OLD> Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID. NEW> Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will discard additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID and will fall back to [RFC9301] behavior when receiving a Map-Request from that xTR-ID (i.e. the Map-Server will send a Map-Reply). [major] While it's a good idea to rate limit, a misbehaving node will not necessarily follow these recommendations either. A better mitigation technique would be to rate limit the accepted messages, not the sent ones. [No need to include anything -- just an observation.] [AR] Ack. Note that the text above implicitly limits the accepted messages (by falling back to RFC 9301) ... 482 10. IANA Considerations 484 This document requests IANA to assign a new bit from the "LISP 485 Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry under the 486 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available 487 at [IANA-LISP]. The position of this bit in the Map-Request message 488 can be found in Figure 1. 490 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ 491 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 492 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ 493 | I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | 494 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ [major] IANA hasn't yet assigned this bit yet. Please make it clear that this is the suggested value. [AR] Ack ... 498 This document also requests the creation of a new sub-registry 499 entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" under the "Locator/ID 500 Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available at 501 [IANA-LISP]. [] The other registries are all called "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: xxx". Following that, here's a suggestion for this new registry: "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request-Record”. [AR] Ack, thanks! ... 513 Bits in position 2-8 are for future assignment. [minor] s/Bits in position 2-8 are for future assignment./The remaining bits are Unassigned. [AR] Ack 515 The policy for allocating new bits from this sub-registry is 516 Specification Required (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]). [major] "Specification Required" required the review of a Designated Expert. Please provide any specific instructions that the DEs should take into account when assigning values from this registry. [AR] We’re making this change: OLD: The policy for allocating new bits from this sub-registry is Specification Required (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]). NEW: The policy for allocating new bits from this sub-registry is Specification Required (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]). It is suggested that multiple designated experts be appointed for registry change requests. Criteria that should be applied by the designated experts include determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing entries and whether the registration description is clear and fits the purpose of this registry. These criteria are considered in addition to those already provided in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126] (e.g., the proposed registration must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification). Registration requests are evaluated within a three-week review period on the advice of one or more designated experts. Within the review period, the designated experts will either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. 518 11. Normative References ... 537 [IANA-LISP] 538 IANA, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters", 539 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp- 540 parameters.xhtml>. [minor] This reference can be Informative. [AR] Ack, thanks! [EoR -09] [AR] Thanks again for the great review!
- [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)