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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 23 June 2021 17:38

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.

<tp>
Les has a point.  I see a relevant I-D and dive in and review it and do not stop to think whether or not this work justifies an RFC.  Having reviewed it, and having worked out what is new - as Les says, examples in Section 4 and not much else  - I struggle to see a justification.

The other thought that this brought to mind is why create an ifType value when the world has been getting on quite happily without it for 13 years?  Is there anything that now needs a value which previously did not?  If so, that might be more suitable for an I-D.

Tom Petch


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