Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Michael, 

The L3NM focuses on the network side (that is, PEs). The module is typically triggered by an L3SM (where the values may be agreed with a customer). FYI, the L3SM (RFC8299) does not support the capability to customize TCP-AO.

When the L3SM (RFC8299) is augmented in the future to support send-id and recv-id, then the L3NM can be easily augmented to pass them to PEs. 

What is really important is that we have a provision for such augment to happen.

Thank you. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 11:10
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; Martin
> Duke <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; opsawg-
> [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11:
> (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Chiming in as author of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp ...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> > [e-mail]
> > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:03 AM
> > To: Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; opsawg-
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
> > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the
> > ACK section of that document).
> >
> > The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in
> > draft-ietf-
> > idr-bgp-model:
> >
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
> >
> >   |     |  |     +--rw (option)?
> >   |     |  |        +--:(tcp-ao)
> >   |     |  |        |  +--rw enable-tcp-ao?      boolean
> >   |     |  |        |  +--rw ao-keychain?        key-chain:key-chain-
> ref
> >
> >
> > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
> >
> >          |  |  |  +--rw (option)?
> >          |  |  |     +--:(ao)
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw enable-ao?             boolean
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw send-id?               uint8
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw recv-id?               uint8
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw include-tcp-options?   boolean
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?    boolean
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw ao-keychain?
> >          |  |  |     |          key-chain:key-chain-ref
> >
> > We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network
> > model, not a device model. A network model does not aim to control
> > every parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other
> > than enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we
> > didn't identify a need to control and customize at the network service
> > level the data nodes in
> > draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp:
> >
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw send-id?               uint8
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw recv-id?               uint8
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw include-tcp-options?   boolean
> >          |  |  |     |  +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?    boolean
> >
> > These optional nodes can be part of a local profile that can be
> > directly manipulated at the device module (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model).
> 
> It is always an interesting (and pretty fundamental) question what
> device parameters can indeed be abstracted in a network model. My
> personal (well, somewhat dated) experience is that different operators
> have very different preferences what parameters to include in a network
> model. Careful reasoning may be required for any omission of a device
> parameter.
> 
> In this specific case, I don't fully understand how VPN provisioning via
> the network level model would pick the values for "send-id" and "recv-
> id"? Those parameters need to be configured consistently on both
> endpoints of the TCP-AO connection, right? What happens if the network
> model draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm only configures one of the two TCP-AO
> endpoints?
> 
> So, why can "send-id" and "recv-id" be removed?
> 
> > We can make these changes, though:
> >
> > s/tcp-ao/ao
> > s/enable-tcp-ao/enable-ao
> 
> It certainly makes sense to use at least consistent naming in different
> IETF models, but unless there is a good reason to remove "send-id" and
> "recv-id", you could just directly import the grouping to ensure
> consistency...
> 
> Michael
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Martin Duke via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé :
> > > dimanche 19 septembre 2021 19:55 À : The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc :
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet :
> > > Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with
> > > DISCUSS)
> > >
> > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: Discuss
> > >
> > > 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > (7.6.3) Is there a reason the TCP-AO model in this draft is
> > > different from the one in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11? That draft is
> > > using a model developed in the TCPM WG (draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp)
> > > specifically for that purpose.
> > >
> > > If there is no compelling requirement for something different, or
> > > the TCPM modelling work can be stretched to cover this use case as
> > > well, it would be far better than rolling a totally separate TCP
> YANG model here.
> > >


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.