[lisp] Re: Routing Directorate Last Call Review for "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding" - draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08

Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 16 July 2024 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.ietf@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 11E15C14F70B; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 CBRfHsn1gilY; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1130.google.com (mail-yw1-x1130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130]) (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 34597C14F697; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1130.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-65465878c1fso67206767b3.2; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1721155804; x=1721760604; 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=yY0XYAXcKtmCLXS0MjI9GxSpKEbyqs74ysHfdoru3kI=; b=RQhPlV//cJXwcxFg3N9G/51jXHIdNjPw6lXjkrZP2oyWHRsQ3y9SUPoSQQQWE9XmVL 1DcLOfhlGJiwTCsXSiG14kqIAGg34HB33r/QjbcsoJtaYkcx/fSzbyTppcqb0rQkp4p8 +GGagQZ0YL0KGxO79uRFi/iXkNRrj6x0erIMgmR4MOLYJizQ6teRdH0suoPssYywJqIa ENySsbhKkZtXYF3dsSzqoj73+xnf+Ytzdg7sdrv6uH9al2lbDQLv5kmQdNCXMi5jvCeO LMb3inVgerpRLK5/QMktZedQzD3mMLKsqnebdyfvIkrerqmCMVafP1LJDMyzSZz8H57Y rVkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721155804; x=1721760604; 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=yY0XYAXcKtmCLXS0MjI9GxSpKEbyqs74ysHfdoru3kI=; b=kZeNaJhaeC++v7jhDSp2P8QeIg1sckICvHlmRsXBFzyvI6nZxJtCk/TWzo85fY/xcL O5/vHUuEAz8BQws/MT6e97pTOqzz+jrJ/BI6+ZOGmvHMawqlmOdEd+egY18WQGeOrji/ zE5UyIgfaIi4kv6K56z3gH+33mypMgpKMygGramu15BSVB+Oeyu5uoLQvmj6OOLLxCy3 re2q15076FOOXRv9TyHDw5HMW84fcF9c2S2q09RjiCwm12pNU+477nYz2DYpWFgtWfuB kizatKwKuBX6kN6YJg5MgqWUWc+YPU80ZigOzr//Op6CRj3oz8efei7Xzb0EzIMvkiZA vIPw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXDs8MLifaxtEZwb2yklgom8qSvd6eq5+fSQtYC8ZqWKbuWGEEanAH530BMG5fK0JmU+r9v2zgpDGNoWuvZ+sFsEJfuk5pvLa42g+to6wJynm6IhyyxzWYoQTjlM5ErDbto/is=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwzAUYRBxrVNzElR8uj0kRd0UP5IFTVwfNB0koeqBp9O8Sinb82 X9M2as7UfK3j4lxTyIaZ8uI0Dai7A+P5xx1yMHNdXdAlRH9azGIvqgXLNw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHP1cYY4vmbwS2xM4KCNioFnUC1mOPhYQopsX5v2ZT3keOWFgGioR4lP5hVMrW2avsQ8qkx+A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:9d:b0:65f:77c3:63a0 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6637ecef5a6mr49829157b3.7.1721155803964; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([136.54.28.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-65fc26122f2sm12432837b3.43.2024.07.16.11.50.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E705921B-A423-4B79-81B3-4CF31F012B51@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:49:52 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <79C9ECAD-293C-48B8-B125-3BDA967592F6@gmail.com>
References: <60F5074B-1ABF-4188-BAAB-93674065EF06@gmail.com> <E705921B-A423-4B79-81B3-4CF31F012B51@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62)
Message-ID-Hash: CYYYJYADGCBDMNGDXUJ54UCTUYG73QET
X-Message-ID-Hash: CYYYJYADGCBDMNGDXUJ54UCTUYG73QET
X-MailFrom: acee.ietf@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: draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding@ietf.org, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, rtgwg-ads@ietf.org, Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [lisp] Re: Routing Directorate Last Call Review for "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding" - draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/mTA6S_mWyBJArdl5TJoXHKeDk6g>
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>

Hi Dino, 

Agree with all responses - see inline. 

> On Jul 11, 2024, at 1:58 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Acee for your useful comments. I created draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-09 and it is on the queue for when submission window opens up.
> 
>> On Jul 9, 2024, at 12:32 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Major Issues: None
>> 
>> Minor Issues:
>> 
>> I have the following minor comments.
>> 
>> 1. In section 3, could you more precisely define the places where
>>    the new encoding is used? I guess in any LISP message where an
>>    EID or RLOC is specified?
> 
> It is listed in section 3 where we say all messages that contain EID-records and RLOC-records can use the name-encoding AFI.


This exposes my only high-level knowledge of the protocol itself. Maybe add a reference to [RFC9301] here as well.  



> 
>> 2. In section 5, the final sentence fragment didn't parse and it
>>    wasn't obvious to me how to edit it - "As well as identifying
>>    the router name...".
> 
> Fixed. Thanks.
> 
>> 3. In section 9.2, The description of the onboarding process includes
>>    very specific details that aren't fully explained. Would it be
>>    possible to describe the use case at a higher level?
> 
> This is some text from the cisco guys. I don't know how to change that. They have the intellectual property on it.

That’s fine with me then. It was just unclear to me how a DN would provide stability to the reliable transport session - would this allow the session to be recovered using a different UDP for? 



> 
>> 4. Remove change log prior to publication.
> 
> Ack.
> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>>  I've attached some editorial suggestions.
> 
> Applied all your suggestions, modulo RTRs are "Re-encapsualting Tunnel Routers" but they are reliable too LOL.

I see RTR is defined in RFC 9300 but not in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list


Thanks,
Acee



> 
> Dino
>