Re: [lisp] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 01 June 2022 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 B8407C14F74F for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 05:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20210112.gappssmtp.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 RnMhFfkFEPqo for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 05:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) (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 048F0C14CF0C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 05:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id f23-20020a7bcc17000000b003972dda143eso2904558wmh.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 05:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=grFAodBo8GOKV67DNfkfFgqVpvE8UKwhHW4bqu+pT3A=; b=LXWONlyXapRDOf/UG0Xy+YeWBJ9znAUMHGfecYSu/t299HWgfTJUDxu6U33iVu3FdB ALxt8hyaT1J3N6WL1vOSqQPswn6B8fOnUJzCBCHnKN+gi359lHAaLaPYx9+I2rzqcVEa hgGDZmFXAp2pxfs2bt8EbuFX5FYAYhlsJ5eiHfmjUTuRa5jabG1sCvE+rVqBdF8uJ6kh bjeobc6oo+Fkyq+IDpV65CnxqrHTRIMe5K5JP8SBNkafPAy6yKeIbqgiLW/7ZdFMcPqr ZGJkdt6x59NXDTAx3TDtqQx71NfZF+4QFZBjhM8J9gp41RHydY771xuSaH/hXcIy3NNV iFIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=grFAodBo8GOKV67DNfkfFgqVpvE8UKwhHW4bqu+pT3A=; b=0sklxD617C2SXd79G6lFhPIvTailkRaacJTmcWDScZ7xiU8fToiRCLy3p6C6Nna/5E cyYRA9hK0RQEmperTXPVY1RnpF2N7fbeXDtQFxoJ7J+YuI3enJOBz62ngs/AyQBx3cE9 Tm7mQxOKbAqlSFLyMQUZc3gbc6eDWziuaV8X0tdyNbiLBV4oC6WxnJKwGarecK5B7H5H 3uPzhW2ldVqMLipurkEVtsfsjxi994tZm/RFtzXNLegPm0sFcB5cbluRoIr1uAyTVr6n 2o4CkEiBrVODqnd7q0FrOTanfPLzHcBFMSrGtX2IhPgtMVuFjVa5XOIdm2WQEHL3Tz9o 7OHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Lfn9G0Y+Hbkm2oEmOs+ZOSHHCRKr2NZdmS5xZeKslo329Rusy YwMzYh2jYQPVSthdW0KApvPrSQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPaDuZGLEJdanJNuWPhCAuJyABA80zjlMCNi9C9L87e48ljv8AsVk3Jsr9d818yPaowOOtKw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3848:b0:397:51dc:9385 with SMTP id s8-20020a05600c384800b0039751dc9385mr27719693wmr.65.1654085742693; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 05:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([37.166.188.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p14-20020a05600c204e00b003974b95d897sm4985556wmg.37.2022.06.01.05.15.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jun 2022 05:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Message-Id: <C9D92BDD-41EB-4AEE-9CE1-AF56A7E86488@gigix.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9C490001-F31C-4A94-BE5C-948974EDF366"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:15:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <0611E5BF-3AFA-45E9-97CE-61FEF3ED5F2D@gigix.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
References: <165402739524.5813.12474772194728200219@ietfa.amsl.com> <0611E5BF-3AFA-45E9-97CE-61FEF3ED5F2D@gigix.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/jEEpzDycq-mi0_cySIKzQHonYeQ>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 01 Jun 2022 12:15:45 -0000

Hi Paul,

A new revision of the drafts has been submitted.
Here is the link to the rfcdiff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12.txt <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12.txt>

Let  me know if this revision does not address your concerns.

Thanks

Ciao

L.

> On 1 Jun 2022, at 10:20, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the draft.
> Please see inline.
> 
> 
>> On 31 May 2022, at 22:03, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: No Objection
>> 
>> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> #1 map-version rollover is defined (to skip the 0 version) but I also see:
>> 
>> The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number greater (i.e.,
>> newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. Since
>> the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-
>> Version number of its mapping is the correct one
>> 
>> This would imply rollover to a smaller number is not expected to occur ?
> 
> It is expected to occur, actually. 
> Text is a bit misleading. 
> Will change it to: 
> 
> The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number newer than 
> the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. Since
> the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-
> Version number of its mapping is the correct one
> 
> Do you think it is better?
> 
> 
>> 
>> #2 MUST NOT or SHOULD ?
>> 
>> Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be
>> used in trusted and closed deployments.
>> 
>> This sentence seems to contradict itself. I would turn the SHOULD into a MUST
> 
> I agree it make sense to put a MUST there.
> Will change it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.