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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Joel -

I have had concerns from the beginning as to whether this draft is really needed.
As I have commented previously, the only content of any significance is Section 4 - and that only provides example settings of the management fields for this interface type.
I question whether a draft is required for this purpose. 
I will defer on this matter to folks more expert in this area than I, but, my opinion is that a draft solely for this purpose is not required.

I thought it polite to mention this before you spend the time and effort to produce a new version.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1:43 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; Harold Liu
> <harold.liu=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
> 
> From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 22 June 2021 09:57
> 
> Do Les' suggested edits address your concerns.
> We will apply yor changes to the IANA considerations section.
> 
> <tp>
> I would go further than Les as I suggested on Tuesday.  Perhaps it is time for
> a new version to comment on.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 6/22/2021 4:34 AM, tom petch wrote:
> > From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 21 June 2021 15:13
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > <tp>
> > Stepping back a few e-mails,
> > I have read 5309 and did point out previously that there is no IANA
> Considerations in that RFC.  What I have said and repeat here is that 5309
> defines the p2pOverLan type.  That is what the RFC claims and that is what it
> does.  You seem to think that the definition of a type is incomplete without a
> numerical value assigned to it, the SMI ifType  or YANG identity.  The concept
> of the type exists whether or not a value has been assigned to it and this is
> one of the places where this I-D goes wrong..
> >
> > I would say
> > Abstract
> > The p2pOverLan interface type is described in RFC5309.
> > Subsequently, this interface type has been assigned a value of 303 by
> IANA, by Expert Review.
> > This memo ....
> >
> > Well, what does it do?  Gives examples of its use?  I see nothing more.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > 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