Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Éric, 

Many thanks for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 juin 2022 11:37
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, review of # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, review of
> draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18 CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It solves a common
> and important
> issue while keeping backward compatibility.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies
> would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.
> 
> Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for the shepherd's write-up
> including the WG
> consensus and the intended status.
> 
> The use of IANA-maintained YANG modules looks attractive to me.
> 

[Med] Thanks. 

> I hope that this helps to improve the document,

[Med] Definitely. 

> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ## COMMENTS
> 
> ### Set of L2VPN technologies
> 
> Just wondering how extensible this model is ? I.e., the L2 cross-
> connect of RFC
> 8986 is not included, any reason why ? How easy would it be to
> extend this
> model to also include RFC 8986 ?

[Med] ... because that is local to the PE. See of example the discussion in RFC4667. Please note that this spec is about a network model, not a device model. Some device-specific features can be handled directly in the device models, not exposed network-wide to a controller. That's said, if such a feature is needed in the L2NM, augments can be considered at the "connection" level with a condition on the service type, for example. 

> 
> ### Section 2
> ```
>       The corresponding YANG module can be used by
>       a service orchestrator to request a VPN service to a network
>       controller or to expose the list of active L2VPN services.
> ```
> Does this mean that state information (e.g., counters) are not
> included ?

[Med] This is covered as per the following:

   The L2NM ('ietf-l2vpn-ntw', Section 8.4) is used to manage L2VPNs
   within a service provider network. In particular, the 'ietf-l2vpn-
   ntw' module can be used to create, modify, delete and retrieve L2VPN
   services in a network controller.

> Actually, sections 7.3 & 7.6.3 mention some status & OAM support
> so suggest
> adding status & OAM to the above text.
> 
> ### Section 6
> 
> While I understand that "ethernet" is used in a broad concept
> (i.e., also
> covering Wi-Fi), I find the use of 'ethernet' a little restrictive
> as layer-2
> VPN could exist in a near future with technologies that are not
> IEEE 802.3
> based (e.g., some IoT networks or the good old frame relay). Alas,
> probably too
> late to change anything.
> 

[Med] I prefer to not touch this at this stage. 

> ### Section 7.4
> 
> ```
>   'svc-mtu':  Is the service MTU for an L2VPN service (i.e., Layer
> 2
>       MTU including L2 frame header/tail).  It is also known as
> the
>       maximum transmission unit or maximum frame size.
> ```
> Does it include CRC and/or preamble ?

[Med] The preamble is not included.

 It would be nice also to
> mention the unit
> of this metric.

[Med] Good catch. Fixed this and also for some other MTU-related data nodes. Thanks.  

> 
> Same question in the 'mtu' in section 7.6.4.

[Med] ACK.

> 
> ### Section 8.4
> 
> Missing "units" in "svc-mtu'.

[Med] Fixed.

> 
> Is 300 msec a valid default aging timer for a MAC address ? This
> seems really
> short.

[Med] We do inherit this value from RFC8466, fwiw. This one is OK. The one I' unhappy with is the default of the "speed" (10 mbps)!! but we preferred to maintain it as such to ease the mapping between the L2SM (RFC8466) and the L2NM.

> 
> ### Sections A.2 & A.3
> 
> Thanks for providing an IPv6 example ;-)

[Med] :-)

> 
> ## NITS
> 
> ### MAC is uppercase
> 
> I noticed at least one occurence of 'mac' in lower case.

[Med] Thanks. Fixed. 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.