Re: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm
"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 06:59 UTC
Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.com>
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 CE480120133 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:59:00 -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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 UylTr5t75Df6 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 AF449120132 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x776ueCI018364; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 07:58:54 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=KfqzWsTLDoERY6yiYJHfJI0sh/fBtVpiv9isk1wPUBI=; b=WrsRbpekAyq+CGEHV7PJx1rQMAalXrNzCOrOc0TU8ByCzrbJHSSFo62X71HHkTw4KDzJ IaUHjMdmxj5wBqRbPXonKOQ6AbD1T64pNdUAA9orX9Ynka/F98skmxYsfXDM0MRwyQ+v 1zf7/nq76NKZoMfzVCWMGlmLVekeK7iACHaKJq/1XgpshZOrgRw047ViTtwJIeFCOuAq qShjJwimVRPx6YUF6cTBv4abSIJ+bqQh3dXxg96aQCZ8y3ZGdde61iLWPHi5akZDo1Vl Jm3gf1i0AJxWp48PO4Of2HX1jMQAYcovoHcs/dqsq35Bd61M1uh3+2+JnkEQRN14F2oV 0w==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [96.6.114.122] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2u4y4tg9wc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 07:58:53 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x776kQuk018863; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 02:58:53 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2u55kva04u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 02:58:52 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.104) by ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 01:58:52 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.134]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.134]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 01:58:52 -0500
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Leonard Giuliano <lenny=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy and draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm
Thread-Index: AQHVPnFaWxNhC2RjyUqiqmv0iQnZfabvPLmA
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 06:58:51 +0000
Message-ID: <3C0E6A4B-D5FF-40BB-BD29-95B38C9F06A6@akamai.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1907191326110.12951@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1907191326110.12951@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.112.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <68ACD64E5E402043BD902B47A32DB0F6@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-07_02:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908070073
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:5.22.84,1.0.8 definitions=2019-08-07_02:2019-08-05,2019-08-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908070075
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/slnf1S5NNjZVAQ-YlylPBK9Sa-w>
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 06:59:01 -0000
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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm/ _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
- [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