Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 9/20/2018 3:15 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Interesting – I haven’t seen it in Routing Area documents – the 
> (technical) advice is given in the applicable sections of the RFC 
> itself. Do you have examples from the Transport Area?
>

Yes, varying practices between area is not that uncommon. We have done 
this quite common in ART. This is one example of a registry I an the 
designated expert for. Where

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8285#section-10.1

As you can see the IANA section contains fairly detailed review 
consideration for the expert.

Similar rules but less extensive as the need was less in one of the 
RFC's I have co-authored:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7826#section-22.9

This IANA section was reviewed multiple times by IANA, including a first 
case when the document was finishing up the WG process due to its 
extensive nature (13 new registries, 22 pages). So IANA appears to have 
no issues with this information.

Even if the requirements are not in the IANA section, there need to be 
an explicit reference from the IANA section to the relevant text in the 
document that provides the requirements, otherwise they are easily 
missed in my experience.


> Always open to discussion – let’s take to a smaller list among the 
> working group chairs and IANA – and then can get back to the larger 
> list. I would (hopefully) say when the working group chooses to update 
> (or the RFC’s expert reviewer) the registry, they follow their RFC, 
> not just the IANA section. Not to jump on process to rationalize – 
> RFC8126 is quite clear to keep IANA considerations for IANA. If others 
> feel the same, can always update to clarify. Let’s talk more.
>

Please consider it, my experience is that having known requirements 
easily found and accessible helps a lot and avoid late surprises.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund


>
> Thanks,
>
> Deborah
>
> *From:*Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 20, 2018 4:14 AM
> *To:* BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; Fabio Maino 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/19/2018 11:17 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
>
>     Thanks Magnus for your careful review!
>
>     Fabio, on your suggested text below, it is not needed to duplicate
>     this in the IANA section. The IANA section provides guidelines on
>     assignment for IANA, not to future authors - it would not be for
>     IANA to ensure requests for registration provide the proper analysis.
>
> Deborah I am disagreeing about this. The IANA section may contain 
> requirements on the registration that further entries are required to 
> fulfill. This becomes especially important in expert review 
> registries. And in this case as a Standards Action registry, making 
> explicit the expectations on new registries from the creators of the 
> registries are very appropriate. It helps ensure that future 
> extensions do think about important things.
>
> So I would really like to see the text stay in.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Deborah
>
>     *From:*Fabio Maino <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 3:53 PM
>     *To:* Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05
>
>     Hi Magnus,
>     thanks for your comments.
>
>     I think I see the points you are making.
>
>     I'll add the section 3.1 below to specify the general transport
>     requirements for the registration of new LISP-GPE payloads, and I
>     will introduce two subsections to instantiate those requirements
>     for Ethernet and NSH (section 4.2 and 4.3 will be moved here). In
>     the "IANA Considerations" section I'll refer to this new section
>     3.1 as a requirement for registration of new encapsulated payload.
>
>     "3.1 Payload Specific Transport Interactions
>
>     To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will
>     work well from a transport interaction perspective, the
>     specification of a new encapsulated payload MUST contain an
>     analysis of how LISP-GPE SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP
>     mapping, and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever
>     they apply to the new encapsulated payload.
>
>     For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
>     specifies how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to
>     consider UDP checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085]
>     when it is desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against
>     corruption. Each new encapsulated payloads, when registered with
>     LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by a similar analysis.
>
>     Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may
>     not be mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of
>     Type of Service in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new
>     encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be
>     accompanied by an analysis similar to the one performed in Section
>     3.1.1 of this document for Ethernet payloads.
>
>     Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification
>     mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header
>     ECN field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with
>     LISP-GPE, MUST  be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from
>     [draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040].
>
>     The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport
>     interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated
>     payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH.
>
>     3.1.1 Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet
>     Encapsulated Payloads
>
>     The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of
>     [draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to Ethernet Encapsulated
>     Payloads. Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum
>     usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable
>     to protect UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against corruption.
>
>     When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>     802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
>     mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
>     the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
>     field as per guidelines provided by [RFC8325].
>
>     When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>     header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to,
>     or used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.
>
>     3.1.2 Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated
>     Payloads
>
>     The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of
>     [draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to NSH Encapsulated Payloads.
>     Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage
>     guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to
>     protect UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against corruption.
>
>     When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and ECN
>     values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol
>     encapsulated by NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet)."
>
>
>     I will also add a paragraph to "Iana Considerations" that says:
>
>
>     "To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will
>     work well from a transport interaction perspective, the
>     registration of a new encapsulated payload MUST contain an
>     analysis of how LISP-GPE SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP
>     mapping, and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever
>     they apply to the new encapsulated payload. The analysis for the
>     new encapsulated payload registered in this document is in section
>     3.1."
>
>     Please, let me know if this address your comments.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Fabio
>
>
>
>     On 8/29/18 2:17 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
>         Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund
>
>         Review result: Not Ready
>
>           
>
>         This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area directorate's
>
>         ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
>
>         primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
>
>         authors and WG for their information and to allow them to address any issues
>
>         raised.
>
>           
>
>         When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
>
>         review together with any other last-call comments they receive.
>
>         Please always [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>  if you reply to or forward this review.
>
>           
>
>         Issue A.
>
>           
>
>         The reason I state Not Ready has to do with this documents failure to consider
>
>         the use of zero checksum for IPv6 when tunneling other things than IP. The none
>
>         GPE version is limited to tunnel IP for which the analysis for use of zero
>
>         checksum has been done. Each of the new tunneled protocols that are specified
>
>         in this document, i.e. ethernet and NHS, will need to perform the analysis if
>
>         they are safe to use zero checksum or not, and if not disallow zero checksum
>
>         for IPv6/UDP. The documetn also need a requirement in the registration
>
>         requirements to perform this analysis and defined if zero checksum is
>
>         acceptable or not.
>
>           
>
>         Citing Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
>
>           
>
>             UDP Checksum:  The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
>
>                by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation
>
>                [RFC6935] [RFC6936].  When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
>
>                received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
>
>                decapsulation.  When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
>
>                checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
>
>                When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
>
>                choose to verify the checksum value.  If it chooses to perform
>
>                such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
>
>                silently dropped.  If the ETR chooses not to perform the
>
>                verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
>
>                packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation.  The handling of UDP
>
>                zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
>
>                LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].
>
>           
>
>         The issue is that when LISP encapsulate other protocols the impact of a
>
>         missdelivered tunnel packet to the wrong ETR can have different impacts. As
>
>         well as errors in the headers of the encapsulated packet that may be assumed to
>
>         be protected by the encapsulating layer. Thus, individual analysis of each
>
>         protocol that are tunneled are needed.
>
>           
>
>         B.) 4.2.  Type of Service
>
>           
>
>             When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>
>             802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
>
>             mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
>
>             the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
>
>             field.
>
>           
>
>         Any recommendation about how to perform that mapping? Maybe parts of
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8325/  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_rfc8325_&d=DwMDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=xhv-vipTwtWwg5AcQtMrZCrQA1JAfYXMAgGWqbjj4Aw&s=8gidprIUCfhadFdWi7xlWD0bPsb3dPdfCw9Qf8kdwTI&e=>  are relevant in this context.
>
>           
>
>         C. General case of 4.2:
>
>           
>
>         I expect other protocols than Ethernet may have a priority field that may or
>
>         may not be mapped to the DSCP field of the tunnel packet.
>
>           
>
>         I would expect that for new protocol registration in the LISP-GPE Next Protocol
>
>         Registry should consider this. Thus, it would be good to note that such
>
>         considerations are needed and part of what should be evaluated for new
>
>         registrations.
>
>           
>
>         D. ECN handling
>
>           
>
>         Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis states:
>
>           
>
>             o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
>
>                of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
>
>                order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
>
>                ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
>
>                header to the outer header.  Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
>
>                'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer
>
>                header.
>
>           
>
>         The above rules may not be applicable for all transport protocols. Thus I think
>
>         it is required that one do protocol specific considerations of ECN. TSVWG are
>
>         working on recommendations for tunnels handling of  ECN here, see:
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dtsvwg-2Decn-2Dencap-2Dguidelines_&d=DwMDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=xhv-vipTwtWwg5AcQtMrZCrQA1JAfYXMAgGWqbjj4Aw&s=eyO4c7D3ShNQhaa8oVDqCidHbEp3mW7AkM51duv8Qw4&e=>  Thus,
>
>         my expectation would be to ensure that the registered protocols have defined
>
>         ECN handling, explicitly or by reference. Secondly that registration
>
>         requirement states the need for this consideration.
>
>           
>
>         Summary: To ensure that future added protocols that are encapsulated will work
>
>         well from a transport interaction perspective there need to be a requirement on
>
>         new registration to consider and define how they use zero checksum, any DSCP
>
>         mapping and ECN bits. In addition the current document needs to ensure these
>
>         things are clearly specified for the encapsulated protocols in this document.
>
>           
>
>           
>
> -- 
> Magnus Westerlund
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------