Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm
Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net> Mon, 12 August 2019 22:42 UTC
Return-Path: <lenny@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D071120873 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eSx8ImGHALKH for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E4AB1222C0 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7CIKHP7015806; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=PPS1017; bh=BJ32e/KMzXaZPJDJ/Q/vtB25TVvupuifjnbXi0bKx+Q=; b=SJ67/gF2ptB2KhR+cHZJWsAnPSPKQDt715nggu4It+HL5fa8sbcAovnkO+Ki+M3MH/sq d3X2lWhQGh0gc/t04gcENGO9axlEu69mQTVgJVSkxsFBWxJ87NXQD/CrmV5KZconsV9k 0yGRh8A5AV/BQwtSDsA+JJZsnTeyPaUOEHRUZrH6TFR3jdmomTLwMVlTSY7Vb+Ttx97n y1cfoTwSBP2KA8e4eVJ2C7DcWypIFZ0/d02827NZpYv/P+OmLCwpy7q0oZ0xDhPD8ha0 92RqowN1ZIGvMfuS9mu5SLYkfiwa7ujFw84NZR/E2haNyGu1z0BS/+Hc9wm8hT6rRpks lQ==
Received: from nam01-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01lp2055.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.55]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ub94j8fh0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:58 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XoLSDGBy5hBEDcWOTs2RuKF1SNJIRr8FRT/QmbAPhHHT2AywhRTD2QAZivWERhy9hSpjkYBrPLsYbpTFtf5B2sDRcLezSAm3Aev6T4X4zcSEwzMG0NLwe/sX8+vcJdOCy970HDWF6devro39v9z3sEQzp1g4UZcYfYQlWrscMONKUGmgsHFNXxoO0/i/o+64bL374ydmkW3I2ozSb6soL3s7DU61HbgUdtKIeQ4vk24vCH54vNNy0eMU48dJjXW1COJJbf8Lw4G9Wdw89nRcBTmbuxSXB/ncS9XF0DvXhTyJAreFMCLkQV3CGC8He130CcmWveDgIuDNT3EmgmQpcg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BJ32e/KMzXaZPJDJ/Q/vtB25TVvupuifjnbXi0bKx+Q=; b=gXc8v/uefVjh9XVhjJjjJDro6n+60gudT78OIjYnQlhND4ZDrZyzsWBbd6JWSTIAaOa8fPrAPkBuB1oenMU4e1TKAU6ZJ6AW0YAy7NFMyxgOKYLNbmj9FLknqIMKI5ACMDEAFFB8BirNs92YBrfH9YtG6N6e+3Y6aSAZnxPHyCpmeesrLbF9JJTHHRmb4WhtdfXidvPJWZ5kVsT0sSgPcHGbVbcCho9mbr4mJmdHOrmdOsx8kacEc2iiilxQynFJic4MMGIOwHykupqS6bf9BULnwAVJsSnOJjhCPhRVUeOGo9fcRZl+owaTc1JIvcBKUQOW/2Vd3Qx1XyM44sOf8w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=softfail (sender ip is 66.129.239.13) smtp.rcpttodomain=ietf.org smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=fail (p=reject sp=reject pct=100) action=oreject header.from=juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
Received: from BYAPR05CA0092.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:e0::33) by BYAPR05MB6486.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:e8::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2157.8; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:27:56 +0000
Received: from CO1NAM05FT062.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e50::209) by BYAPR05CA0092.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:a03:e0::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2157.8 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:27:56 +0000
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.13 as permitted sender)
Received: from P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net (66.129.239.13) by CO1NAM05FT062.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.96.180) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2178.6 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:27:55 +0000
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) by P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net (10.104.8.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:55 -0700
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:55 -0700
Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.104.20.6) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:54 -0700
Received: from contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net ([10.163.18.88]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id x7CIRs1F002244; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:54 -0700 (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: by contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1709) id 5B8B61236C5; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5EB120BDC; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:27:54 -0700
From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
X-X-Sender: lenny@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net
To: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
CC: MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3C0E6A4B-D5FF-40BB-BD29-95B38C9F06A6@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1908121126280.9880@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1907191326110.12951@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net> <3C0E6A4B-D5FF-40BB-BD29-95B38C9F06A6@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e3cb0ff2-54e7-4646-8a04-0dae4ac7b136
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.13; IPV:NLI; CTRY:US; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(2980300002)(189003)(199004)(51914003)(305945005)(7126003)(476003)(70206006)(70586007)(2870700001)(50466002)(316002)(229853002)(446003)(11346002)(8936002)(336012)(57986006)(6266002)(478600001)(6916009)(6246003)(58126008)(356004)(426003)(26005)(2906002)(186003)(966005)(47776003)(5820100001)(8676002)(23676004)(5660300002)(6306002)(76506006)(4326008)(86362001)(53936002)(81156014)(486006)(14444005)(81166006)(126002)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB6486; H:P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net; FPR:; SPF:SoftFail; LANG:en; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1;
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: cc867613-27a9-46fe-5987-08d71f52cb8f
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(4710121)(4711136)(1401327)(2017052603328); SRVR:BYAPR05MB6486;
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BYAPR05MB6486:
X-MS-Exchange-PUrlCount: 3
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BYAPR05MB64862EEC4D9B5B2E69068BB5A4D30@BYAPR05MB6486.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:2000;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 012792EC17
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: Z2vf3HC+oWRePtMbJK7KNDF/y8s4a35IEK8dbTShwHE7J5Fnukss3PbMSBrGg3eUM0ZGeXBKPaURFZPyVcN9CImP2ewyOqFArSLSfgoncHhmRXFlnjMUwtVFEY1b/y8E36KLMiZck6OofnFNAkbeGok+m7oK8x3Ck1g/mh4brF/q5ChHsPfifi6ucvoWDDkHcc7zzp39cVAHvkhrqbpoRh1DTxijmdhSL1ZQIvfmMjogruyq+grgAc62GU/k0SlY/EawZ320R33EJblCwWA7BcosL9KyT3GpzM47YBEmZnklPj1CijkmA147V31Kasb072SyFH36XbdzX/+rbwtIDb4kmQqe/JGebvKsPud7H/2fFLCkzWzvx70N86ugbKj3uGFB1y56HjTiQPL63BJ6arUmCGGBa5e951Mq8U3aiOw=
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2019 18:27:55.8072 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cc867613-27a9-46fe-5987-08d71f52cb8f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.239.13]; Helo=[P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB6486
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-12_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908120195
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/DDYWq8hpIcNBN5OPN8fV1I0LlRI>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:42:43 -0000
Jake- thanks for the thorough review. We are discussing the changes and will get back to you shortly. On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Holland, Jake wrote: | I read deprecate-interdomain-asm. I think technically it looks | to me to be in pretty good shape with one minor exception, but | there are a bunch of minor language and editorial issues. | | I don't object to moving the doc forward, but I think it would be | better to tighten up the language first. I took some quick notes | on the issues and nits that jumped out at me as grammar errors or | reasonably egregious problems that probably should get fixed. | | Here's the notes: | | Technical: | | 3.2.3 Intrinsic source-control security | SSM is implicitly secure against unauthorized/undesired sources. | - the only protection is against off-path attackers, not against all | unauthorized sources. | | | Editorial: | | Intro: | the recommended interdomain mode of multicast. This recommendation | thus also implicitly states that all hosts and routers that are | expected to support interdomain multicast applications fully support | - it's explicitly stated here, so "implicitly states" seems wrong. | Maybe "implies"? Or maybe make the recommendation explicit? | | 2.2.1 PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) | last paragraph: | To this day, there is no IETF Proposed Standard level interdomain | solution for IPv4 ASM multicast because MSDP was the "best" component | - quoted '"best"' in last paragraph seems almost sarcastic--maybe | "most widely deployed" would be better? | - "where" -> "were" in: | Other protocol options where investigated at the same time | | 2.2.3 Bidir-RP | nit: "may want to sent" -> "may want to send" | | 2.3 SSM Routing Protocols | SSM is detailed in [RFC4607]. It mandates the use of PIM-SSM for | routing of SSM. PIM-SSM as it merely a subset of PIM-SM ([RFC7761]). | - incomplete sentence: "PIM-SSM as it merely a subset of PIM-SM ([RFC7761])." | | 3.1 Observations on ASM and SSM deployments: | troubleshoot (complex flooding RPF rules, state attack protection, | filtering of undesired sources, ...). | - should the ellipsis be filled in or exchanged for "and a number of | other issues"? This whole parenthetical seems maybe better as a | fleshed-out explanatory sentence. | | 3.2.1 Reduced network operations complexity | last paragraph | PIM. In Bidir-PIM, traffic is forwarded to an RPs instead o building | state as in PIM-SM. Even in the absence of receivers. Bidir-PIM | | - "to an RP" or "to RPs", I think | - "o" -> "of" | - "Even in the absence of receivers." is an incomplete sentence. | | 3.2.2 No network wide IP multicast group-address management | a source like a unicast transport protocol port number: No two | independent applications on the host must use same IP multicast group | - "No" capitalized after colon is wrong I think? | - weird phrasing in "no two applications must use the same"--something | maybe more like "the only coordination required is to ensure that | applications running on the same host don't send to the same group | address" | | | 4.1 Deprecating use of ASM for interdomain multicast | operated by two or more separate administrative entities (domains, | organisations). | - this is a weird parenthetical with unclear meaning. I think these | are examples of administrative entities? It might be best to cut | the parenthetical or explain with exposition here? | | are under different operator control. A typical example of this case | is an SP providing IPTV (single operator domain for PIM) to | - "SP" not defined | | 4.4 Developing application guidance: SSM, ASM, service discovery | | | Deploying any form of IP | multicast solely in support of such service discovery is in general | not recommended (complexity, control, ...) but instead dedicated | service discovery via DNS [RFC6763] | - This is not a complete sentence, and doesn't end with a period | - "(complexity, control, ...)" is a weird list and ellipsis, probably | better to expand and explain. | | Best practices should be developed to explain when to use SSM in | applications, when ASM without (S,G) state in the network is better, | or when dedicated service-discovery mechanisms should be used. | - This seems like something that would be in-scope for this document, | but is just left out? (Or maybe this whole section should be cut, | and a note somewhere else added saying this topic is out of scope? | Or just the problem of ASM for service discovery should be explained | and advised against?) | | 4.8 Not precluding Intradomain ASM | | - unclosed paren at end of 2nd paragraph "(see Section 4.4." | | - "does also not preclude" -> "also does not preclude" | | 4.9 Evolving PIM deployments for SSM | | First paragraph has several problems: | - "with no or little changes" is weird. | - "whener" -> whenever | - "configuring/enabled" -> "enabled" | - "This allows to easily migrate" - no subject in this sentence? | - "transitioning" -> "transition" | - "Unchanged" capitalized after colon | | 5. Future interdomain ASM work | | - "this document does not believe" -> something like "the mboned | working group does not believe"? (documents don't have beliefs) | | | HTH. | | Best, | Jake | | On 2019-07-19, 13:34, "Leonard Giuliano" <lenny=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: | | | We would like to officially begin working group last call for BOTH | draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and | draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm. Please post whether you | support/oppose the advancement of either/both of the drafts as well as any | comments you may have to the list by Aug 16. Also, please note if you are | aware of any IPR involved in this drafts (we must hear from the authors | about IPR). | | Most recent version of the draft can be found here: | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dmboned-2Ddc-2Ddeploy_&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=iw2TU3OZ0CDpCbqeV23zdah2FoG9Do-zEmGgWTaavDg&m=iGOi3d2ESqqQiSMChau3ZzCOxK5Pm9cfhZ7bYzvjsYg&s=DQ3wIt7yMATSrjA9uFvOzDWQa47SENcnXLYb63I1mAk&e= | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dmboned-2Ddeprecate-2Dinterdomain-2Dasm_&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=iw2TU3OZ0CDpCbqeV23zdah2FoG9Do-zEmGgWTaavDg&m=iGOi3d2ESqqQiSMChau3ZzCOxK5Pm9cfhZ7bYzvjsYg&s=cZZVruG-gduaapy7KRw9QcFvVyuduuMWq9_aGu9lU6M&e= | | _______________________________________________ | MBONED mailing list | MBONED@ietf.org | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mboned&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=iw2TU3OZ0CDpCbqeV23zdah2FoG9Do-zEmGgWTaavDg&m=iGOi3d2ESqqQiSMChau3ZzCOxK5Pm9cfhZ7bYzvjsYg&s=26PkbDTiryLBxKPCWaxQKc8MQ-1bkBxn09K6BbGtJuE&e= | | |
- [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Mike McBride
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Mike McBride
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Olufemi Komolafe
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Xiejingrong
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Xiejingrong
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Holland, Jake
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Andrew Gallo
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… David Farmer
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Olufemi Komolafe
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy… Toerless Eckert