Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,
thank you for your comments and very helpful discussion. My notes in-lined
and now tagged with GIM2>>

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> see inline.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> > Am 03.03.2017 um 03:47 schrieb Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank your for the review and the comments, most helpful.
> > Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > High level comment:
> > Maybe extend the security section a bit and describe what can happen in
> > the worse case if the value has been modified to a too high or too low
> > value; and maybe even given some guidance on performing additional checks
> > to figure out if a given value is reasonable for a given path or not.
> >
> > Questions:
> > - Can you explain why PTPType, Port ID, and Sequence ID are needed in the
> > PTP Sub-TLV format if those values are already in the PTP packet itself
> > that follows?
> > GIM>> We propose to copy these values as they uniquely identify PTP
> control message as these are required for two-step mode and suggesting
> inspection of the PTP payload would cause layer violation.
>
> I see. Maybe add a sentence that these field are use to identify the
> packet. However, when you copy them, you also have to inspect the payload
> and that’s the same layer violation. Also not sure if duplicating
> information in the packet is the best approach. Why don’t use just add an
> own identifier to the packet instead?
>
GIM2>> Will the following, when added at the very end of Section 3.1, work:

   Tuple of PTPType, Port ID, and Sequence ID uniquely identifies PTP
   control packet encapsulated in RTM message and are used in two-step
   RTM mode Section 2.1.1.

GIM2>> The RTM message created by egress or the first on the LSP two-step
RTM node. Thus other RTM nodes don't need to look into PTP control message
but use the PTP sub-TLV. Creating new identifier is certainly an
alternative but I believe that will require more state coordination between
LERs on the same RTM LSP. Re-using existing characteristic information, in
my view, is simpler solution.

>
> >
> > - Why is it necessary to define PTP sub-TLV (and have a registry for one
> > value only)? Are you expecting to see more values here? What would those
> > values be?
> > GIM>> We may have another protocols or applications to use RTM and these
> the most likely will have their specific set of parameters to uniquely
> identify control session for two-step mode. One obvious case would be NTP
> when on-path support is defined. But since we don't know which parameters
> will uniquely identify cotrol session we don't request code point
> allocation.
>
> My understanding was that a new protocol would be a different RTM TLV in
> the registry in section 7.2. That’s fine. I don’t understand why your PTP
> sub-TLV needs ANOTHER TLV scheme: figure 2 and registry in sec 7.3.
>
GIM2>> RTM TLV differentiates  between different encapsulation types, e.g.
Ethernet, IPv4 or IPv6 but sub-TLV doesn't have to. Do you see this as a
problem?

>
> > - Similar to Spencer's question: Why don't you also define a Sub-TLV
> > format for NTP?
> > GIM>>Hope that above answer addresses this question.
>
> Actually not really. Why don’t you know which parameters to use?
>
> > - sec 4.3: "RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with
> > values
> >       defined as follows:
> >       *  0b001..."
> >   Maybe I don't understand what a bit-map field is here but these are
> > more then 3 bits...?
> > GIM>> '0b' identifies binary format as '0x' identifies hexadecimal
> format of notation.
> Ah sorry, fully overview that.
>
> > - also sec 4.3.: "Value contains variable number of bit-map fields so
> > that overall
> >       number of bits in the fields equals Length * 8."
> >   However there is no field 'Value' in the figure...
> > GIM>> Thank you for pointing. I'll update Figure 4 and Figure 5 to add
> Value tag on the field immediately following RTM field.
>
> There are more questions here:
>
> > Also the following
> > explanation about future bit-maps is really confusing to me; why don't
> > you just say that the rest as indicated by the length field must be
> > padded with zeros...?
>
GIM2>> The description follows RFC 7794 Section 2.1

> > - Should section 4.8 maybe be a subsection of 4.7? This part confused me
> > a bit because the example seems to be generic but the rest is RSVP-TE
> > specific, right? Maybe move the example as a separate section before or
> > after the whole section 4...?
>
GIM2>> Thank you, I agree it is more logical flow. With the change
suggested by Ben it will look like this:

   4.  Control Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  RTM Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  RTM Capability Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in Routing Protocols . . . .  11
       4.3.1.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2  . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.2.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3  . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.4.  RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS  . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM  . . . . .  14
       4.4.1.  RTM_SET TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

>
> > Nits:
> > - Maybe change to title to: Residence Time Measurement (RTM) in MPLS
> > network
> > - There are (still) some not spelled out abbreviations (LDP, PW);
> > GIM>> Since both are used only once - expanded
> > in turn
> > others are extended twice (e.g. PTP)...
> > GIM>>  Cleaned.
> > - In figure 1, I would rename 'Value' to 'Sub-TLV' and maybe also
> > indicate it as optional in the figure: Sub-TLV (optional)
> > GIM>> Agree
> >
>
>