[Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 19 May 2020 22:43 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E9A3A0E09; Tue, 19 May 2020 15:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.130.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <158992822966.6522.4643872233017159559@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 15:43:50 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/T_A5dscUxLOFZiXmcFXvOBjRDic>
Subject: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 22:43:51 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: Discuss 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a question about the scope of some normative language, which may or may not be problematic but I'm too ignorant of OSPF details to be able to answer myself. In Section 3 we say that: When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting. My undesrtanding is that it's normal operation for an ABR to distribution information about prefixes and such between areas, and in particular that an ABR does not necessarily need to know the semantic details of every bit of information being distributed in that fashion. So, I am imagining a scenario where some routers in both areas advertise/understand the ELC flag but the ABR between them does not implement this spec. What would happen in such a scenario? If the ABR is still expected to distribute the ELC setting without change, isn't that just a core requirement from the respective OSPF specs, as opposed to a new requirement imposed by this spec (which, in this scenario, the ABR is not claiming to adhere to anyway)? There is perhaps a similar question about the ASBR guidance, though when doing cross-protocol signalling there is a more clear need for the ASBR to understand the semantics of the flags it is redistributing (and it's only a "SHOULD"). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1 The abstract is pretty explicit that "this draft defines" both ELC and ERLD signaling capabilities, but this section only has a clear statement for the ELC. Should we put something at the end of the last paragraph about "this document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3"? In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be side note(?): I don't know that SR-MPLS is so popular so as to be privileged as the only example given for LSP usage. If we instead talked about using IGPs to signal labels, this selection would seem less surprising to me. Section 3 If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. Do we want to say anything about (not) advertising the ELC for other prefixes? Section 7 Should we say anything about considerations for redistributing ELC/ERLD information at the ASBR with respect to exposing "internal information" to external parties? This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752], [RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662], RFC 8662's security considerations have a pretty hard dependency on RFC 6790's security considerations; it might be worth mentioning 6790 directly in this list as well. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this document. Could we also have a brief note that the (respective) OSPF security mechanisms serve to protect the ELC/ERLD information? Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress node. This is what happens when the E flag should not be set but is erroneously set. Should we also say what happens if we should set the E flag but erroneously clear it (e.g., that poor or no load-balancing may occur)? Section 8 I do see the note in the shepherd writeup about the sixth author (thank you!); if we're already breaking through the 5-author limit, did we consider making those who "should be considered as co-authors" listed as co-authors? Section 10.2 It's slightly surprising to see the core OSPF protocols only listed as informative, but I can see how they are to be considered "basic specifications" in the vein of https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
- [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk