Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06: (with COMMENT)

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 14 March 2019 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AC9131162; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 anMniq1dWL9U; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 1F8ED131164; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3AA1EE3E6C3E4CBCB0A3; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:44:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.38) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:44:03 +0000
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.190]) by dggeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:44:00 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCB2aWEgRGF0YXRyYWNrZXI=?= <noreply@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "loa@pi.nu" <loa@pi.nu>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIE5vIE9iamVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm?= =?utf-8?Q?-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHU2Oy6s520bV8QO0y5RWWbir7qHKYJRALQ//+IqQCAAJatQP//jkSAgAFrBfA=
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:43:59 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2928FCCA6@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <155240641959.16274.10292530156982066442.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2928FAF0D@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <F4C6A6A4-C40A-41D9-B135-E66EFC9EE06C@kuehlewind.net> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2928FB194@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <33D26DA9-1F43-4C9E-93BD-DA1FC23BC7C0@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <33D26DA9-1F43-4C9E-93BD-DA1FC23BC7C0@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/rzZbg7Kr6tNaFw1yUbill1Kgx84>
Subject: Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-?= =?utf-8?q?ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:44:10 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for your suggestion, will add to the next revision.

Best regards,
Mach  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:04 PM
> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>rg>;
> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org; The
> IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; loa@pi.nu
> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-
> multipath-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Mach,
> 
> See below.
> 
> > On 13. Mar 2019, at 11:52, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 5:51 PM
> >> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
> >> Cc: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>rg>; The IESG
> >> <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-
> >> multipath@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; loa@pi.nu
> >> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-
> >> multipath-06: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Hi Mach,
> >>
> >> Please see below
> >>
> >>> On 13. Mar 2019, at 10:15, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mirja,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your comments!
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:00 AM
> >>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org;
> >>>> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; loa@pi.nu; mpls@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> >>>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-
> >>>> multipath-06: (with COMMENT)
> >>>>
> >>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> >>>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06: 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-lsp-ping-lag-multi
> >>>> pa
> >>>> th/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --
> >>>> -
> >>>> COMMENT:
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --
> >>>> -
> >>>>
> >>>> I wanted to comment on the same sentence/normative requirement
> as
> >>>> Alvaro did in his point (2). Given Alvaro's additional information
> >>>> that there is actually even a technical conflict with this
> >>>> requirement, I think this should be address before publication and
> >>>> might even be discuss-worthy. However, I'm really not an expert on
> >>>> MPLS and therefore leave the decision to state a discuss ballot
> >>>> position to
> >> potentially other, more knowledgable ADs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for addressing the TSV-ART review comments (and thanks Jörg
> >>>> for the review)! I support adding another sentence with a pointer
> >>>> to rate-limit requirements in other docs. Thanks for proposing this
> >>>> change. Looking forward this see this in the doc!
> >>>
> >>> Are you suggesting to add a reference, do you have any specific docs
> >> suggestion?
> >>
> >> In your reply to Joerg’s tsv-art review (on Dec 14 already), you
> >> proposed to add the following statement:
> >>
> >> "For an LSP path, it may be over several LAGs. For each LAG, there
> >> will be many member links. To exercise all the links, many Echo
> >> Request/Reply messages will be sent in a short period. It's possible
> >> that those messages may traverse a common path as a burst. Under some
> >> circumstances this might cause congestion at the common path. To
> >> avoid potential congestion, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations to
> >> randomly delay the Echo Request and Reply messages at the Initiating
> LSRs and Responder LSRs.”
> >>
> >> You also said:
> >> "RFC8029 (Security Consideration) does recommend the implementation
> >> to regulate the ping traffic to the control plane, it  applies to
> >> this document as well.
> >>
> >> At the same time, RFC 6425 (P2MP LSP Ping, section 2.2) introduces
> >> some ways to limit the message rate. The way of random delay messages
> >> would apply to this document as well.”
> >>
> >> So adding pointer to these two documents/sections would be good as
> >> well maybe.
> >
> > How about adding the below sentence?
> >
> > "The similar rate limiting paradigm is already adopted in [RFC8029] and
> RFC[6425].”
> 
> That works, or, even better, you could say something more similar than what
> you said earlier, e.g.
> 
> “Rate limiting of ping traffic is further specified in RFC8092 (secti?n 1) and
> RFC6425 (section 2.2) which apply to this document as well.”
> 
> Thanks,
> Mirja
> 
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mirja
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Mach
> >>>>
> >>>
> >