Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Okay.  We will make those changes.

Thank you,
Joel

On 6/21/2021 3:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Joel -
> 
> In addition to the IANA section changes,
> 
> 1)Please be sure that the text consistently refers to "Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN" - not simply "Point to Point"
> 
> 2)I think the abstract/introduction should make it clear that this draft is specifying the management mappings for the " Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN".
> It is NOT defining Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN operation - that clearly was already done by RFC 5309.
> 
> 3)I don’t know if Section 3 is really needed. I tend to think not.
> But if you do want to keep it, please Reference RFC 8343 Section 4 as this is clearly a copy of the Figure in that document/section.
> 
>     Les
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 8:47 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; tom petch
>> <[e-mail]>; Harold Liu
>> <harold.liu=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>
>> The change Tom has proposed to the IANA considerations section is fine
>> with me.
>>
>> If there are other specific changes that will make it clearer, I and my
>> co-authors are happy to make those.   I have tried looking at the text.
>>    Even before you found it misleading, I did conclude that Tom getting
>> the wrong impression meant it needs to be clarified.  But as I am having
>> trouble seeing what misled you, I can not suggest wording improvements
>> to my co-authors.
>>
>> I presume from your phrasing that you want more changes than just to the
>> IANA considerations section.  I presume I am just being dense in not
>> seeing the rest.  I apologize, but that does not make me less dense.
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Help?
>> Joel
>>
>> On 6/21/2021 11:28 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>> Joel -
>>>
>>> I am not objecting to the draft.
>>> I am simply asking for it to be both clear and accurate in what it is actually
>> doing.
>>>
>>> I think Tom has done an excellent job of pointing out the inaccuracies and
>> in some cases providing proposed revised text.
>>>
>>> I would ask you to reread your own draft in the context that at least two
>> people have read it and found it inaccurate and both of us have made very
>> explicit points about what language is confusing.
>>>
>>>      Les
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 8:13 AM
>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; tom petch
>>>> <[e-mail]>; Harold Liu
>>>> <harold.liu=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> Les, I am missing something ion both your and Tom's comments.  5309
>>>> didn't define the ifType.  If you look at 5309, it has no IANA
>>>> considerations at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this document should talk about 5309 as one of the cases that the
>>>> ifType simplifies.  And it does.
>>>>
>>>> This documents follows the lead of 8343 in defining this specific ifType.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be clear.  We were asked, quite reasoanbly, by the expert, when we
>>>> requested the IANA code point, to please submit a document describing
>>>> how the dcode point would be used, rather than merely pointing at 5309
>>>> and assuming everyone could guess correctly.  (Guessing is not good for
>>>> standards.)
>>>> So we are trying to do so.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be objecting to our doing so.  Why?
>>>>
>>>> If the working group really doesn't want a description, we can go away.
>>>>     We have the code point we felt was useful.  But it seems much more
>>>> useful to actually provide meaningful documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:58 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>>>> I am in complete agreement with the points Tom has made.
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICT, the only new content in this draft is Section 4 - the rest is either
>>>> boilerplate or a repetition of text already present in RFC 5309 or RFC 8343.
>>>>> Neither the Abstract nor the Introduction makes that clear.
>>>>> The abstract actually claims to
>>>>>
>>>>>        "defines point-to-point interface type"
>>>>>
>>>>> which is both FALSE (already defined in RFC 5309) and incorrectly named
>> -
>>>> since the document is actually discussing "point-to-point operation over
>>>> LAN".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the IANA section, it is clear that the draft is NOT creating new
>>>> entries - rather it is modifying existing entries. And it isn’t modifying the
>> code
>>>> points, the names, or the descriptions - it only seeks to modify the
>>>> references to include "this document".
>>>>> But the text in the IANA section states otherwise:
>>>>>
>>>>> " IANA need to update the "Interface Types(ifType)" registry...with the
>>>> following status types"
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know whether the content in Section 4 is sufficient to claim a
>>>> reference, but if it is it should only be in addition to the existing reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Les
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:13 AM
>>>>>> To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Harold Liu
>>>>>> <harold.liu=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom, 5309 did not define the ifType.  Go read 5309.  You seem to have
>>>>>> gotten confused by the fact that the IANA entry given to 303 points to
>>>>>> 5309.  That was done to have some reference (with the consent of the
>>>>>> experts).   What we are doing now is providing a better reference.  So
>>>>>> yes, this document defines how the ifType is defined.  With no criticism
>>>>>> of 5309, it does not define that, since it does not define the ifType.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are explicit in this draft that one of the obvious uses for this
>>>>>> ifType is to trigger 5309 behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 4:41 AM, tom petch wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Harold Liu
>>>>>> <harold.liu=[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: 21 June 2021 02:01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Med and All:
>>>>>>>            Thanks for your helpful comments, I have updated a new version
>> 01
>>>> to
>>>>>> follow the comments;
>>>>>>>            The main updating is:
>>>>>>>            1. More clearly described the intend of this draft in the
>> introduction;
>>>>>>>            2. Change the reference style;
>>>>>>>            3. Refactor the reference section to make it more reasonable;
>>>>>>>            4. I haven't change "IANA Consideration" at the moment given
>>>> there is
>>>>>> lots of discussion in this part and it is still up in the air, I will change this
>>>> section
>>>>>> next update the document once this part is finalized;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <tp>
>>>>>>> I still think that this is an unsatisfactory I-D and would oppose
>> adoption in
>>>> its
>>>>>> present form,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a question of veracity.  It claims to do what others have already
>> done
>>>>>> and does so without reference, without acknowledgement.  Having the
>>>>>> same data defined in more than one place can only create confusion, in
>>>>>> future if not now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a pattern and starts with the Abstract and continues
>> throughout
>>>> the
>>>>>> I-D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus the Abstract claims 'this defines point-to-point interface type'.
>> No.
>>>>>> This type was defined in RFC5309 and you need to say that and to say
>>>> what if
>>>>>> anything you are changing in that definition.  You should not reproduce
>>>> text
>>>>>> from that RFC unless you have to and then you should make it clear you
>>>> are
>>>>>> quoting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do the same with Figure 1.  This is a copy, may be accurate may be
>>>> not,
>>>>>> it does not matter, from RFC8343 with no mention thereof.  You should
>>>> not
>>>>>> be reproducing such text without a good reason and then you should
>>>> make it
>>>>>> clear what is reproduced, from where and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And as I have said already, IANA Considerations is yet again claiming to
>>>> do
>>>>>> what has already happened which can only confuse.  All that is needed
>> as
>>>> I
>>>>>> said in a separate note  is to ask IANA to update two references,
>> nothing
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Petch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            And I would like to share more background information for this
>>>> internet
>>>>>> draft:
>>>>>>>            As Joel mentioned, we requested and received an IF Type
>>>> assignment
>>>>>> from IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet links
>>>> several
>>>>>> weeks ago and the p2pOverLan type is already added to IANA registry
>>>> now;
>>>>>>>            During the discussion around the assignment we noticed a doc
>>>>>> describing why that is needed and how to use that would be helpful;
>>>>>>>            For example, if no entry saying p2pOverLan layer over ethernet,
>> the
>>>>>> management will suffer since lose the ability to get to the Ethernet-
>>>> specific
>>>>>> management properties (Ethernet MIB or YANG model) via many tools;
>>>> So
>>>>>> we propose this draft to define a complete p2pOverLan
>> ifStack(Including
>>>>>> higher layer and lower layer);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:16 PM
>>>>>>> To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; draft-liu-lsr-
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Joel, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please find some quick comments to this draft, fwiw:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * pdf: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e8e7d1aa-b77ce948-
>>>>>> e8e79131-86073b36ea28-edbd778070bbec9a&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-
>>>> 41fd-
>>>>>> bf1b-
>>>> 56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-
>>>>>> Drafts-Reviews%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00-
>>>>>> rev%2520Med.pdf
>>>>>>> * doc: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=938b5849-cc1060ab-
>>>>>> 938b18d2-86073b36ea28-e0406a2599fa2a6d&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-
>>>> 41fd-
>>>>>> bf1b-
>>>> 56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-
>>>>>> Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00-
>>>>>> rev%2520Med.docx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>>>> De : Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
>>>>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 16 juin 2021 22:47 À : Acee Lindem (acee)
>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action:
>>>>>>>> draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This document (and the code point) are intended to be in line with
>>>>>>>> 5309.
>>>>>>>>       I believe they are.  If we got it wrong, please help us fix it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A reference would be reasonable to add.  (The IANA entry for the
>> code
>>>>>>>> point does reference 5309.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2021 4:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At first I wondered where this document should reside and then
>>>>>>>> decided that LSR is probably as good as any other place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you guys check whether it is mostly in line with
>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5309/ and comment as to
>> whether
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> should be referenced?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Acee
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/21, 11:10 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <lsr-
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Recently, Ericsson requested and received an IF Type
>>>>>>>> assignment from
>>>>>>>>>          IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet
>>>>>>>> links.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          It was noted during the discussion around the assignment that
>>>>>>>> a document
>>>>>>>>>          (eventually, we hope, an RFC) describing how to use that and
>>>>>>>> why we
>>>>>>>>>          asked for it would be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          The below announcement is that draft.  We would like to work
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>          community to improve and clarify teh draft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>          Joel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>>>>>          Subject: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>>>>>>          Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:00:04 -0700
>>>>>>>>>          From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>          Reply-To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>          To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-
>>>>>>>> Drafts
>>>>>>>>>          directories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   Title           : Interface Stack Table Definition
>>>>>>>> for Point to
>>>>>>>>>          Point (P2P) Interface over LAN
>>>>>>>>>                   Authors         : Daiying Liu
>>>>>>>>>                                     Joel Halpern
>>>>>>>>>                                     Congjie Zhang
>>>>>>>>>                 Filename        : draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
>>>>>>>>>                 Pages           : 7
>>>>>>>>>                 Date            : 2021-06-16
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>              The point-to-point circuit type is one of the mainly used
>>>>>>>> circuit
>>>>>>>>>              types in link state routing protocol.  It is important to
>>>>>>>> identify
>>>>>>>>>              the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies,
>>>>>>>> flooding link
>>>>>>>>>              state database packets, and monitor the link state.  This
>>>>>>>> document
>>>>>>>>>              defines point-to-point interface type and relevant stack
>>>>>>>> tables to
>>>>>>>>>              provide benefit for operation, maintenance and
>>>>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>>>          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>>>          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-lsr-
>>>>>>>> p2poverlan-00
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>>>>          ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>          I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>>>>>>>          [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>>>>>>>          Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>>>>>>>>          or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>          Lsr mailing list
>>>>>>>>>          [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>>>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>>>> exploites
>>>>>> ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur,
>>>> veuillez
>>>>>> le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>>>>>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline
>>>> toute
>>>>>> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged
>>>>>> information that may be protected by law; they should not be
>> distributed,
>>>>>> used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>>>> delete
>>>>>> this message and its attachments.
>>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>>>> been
>>>>>> modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr