[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

As is customary, I have done my AD review
of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03.
First, I would like to thank the authors - Xiaohu, Bruno, Robert, Luis, and
Luay - for their work on this useful document.

I do have a few concerns that need addressing before the draft can progress.

Major:

1) First, the draft talks about what information is sent - but nothing
about how it is to be understood or used.  That'd be ok if there were a
clear reference to a document that discussed the related procedures.  A
quick scan of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 seems that it may be the
right place to start - but it's procedures are BGP-focused and while there
are many similarities, there may be interesting differences as well.
For instance, for the Color sub-TLV, is the 4 byte color value expected to
represent the same meaning in OSPF as in BGP?  Can a BGP route with a
particular color extended community then have the OSPF tunnel to use
selected from only those tunnels with the same color?  What does the Color
TLV mean in a purely OSPF context?  Sec 7 of
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 ("However, suppose that one of the TLVs in
U2's Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains the Color Sub-TLV.  In that
case, packet P SHOULD
   NOT be sent through the tunnel identified in that TLV, unless U1 is
   carrying the Color Extended Community that is identified in U2's
   Color Sub-TLV.") doesn't seem to strictly apply.

Semantics and behavior need to be specified - not just the encodings, and
that is all this draft currently has.

2) Sec 5.1 and Sec 5.2 refer to the format of the Encapsulation Sub-TLV and
Protocol Sub-TLV coming from draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 - but that
draft defines not merely the format, but allocates an IANA registry for
additional sub-types that can appear and defines the format and contents of
the sub-TLV based upon the tunnel type.   I'm nearly certain that you mean
that these sub-tlvs use not merely the same format (*does variable length
fields based upon the allocated type cause issues for OSPF sub-TLV
parsing???*) but can contain any values and sub-TLVs defined in the
relevant IANA registry. As it is written now, there is no reference to the
registry or ability to easily support more tunnel types in the future.

3) It is unfortunate that Geneve, which is the agreed encapsulation for
NVO3, is not included in the set of tunnels but VXLAN-GPE, which is not
going to be a standard, is.
I know this is duplicating what is in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 but
it emphasizes the need to assume additional Tunnel Types and related
Encapsulation Sub-TLVs will be defined.

4) Sec 4: Is there a reason to create a new IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types
registry instead of reusing BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types
(
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel-types)?
The latter is FCFS and the proposed registry is Standards Action.   There
are already differences and collisions between the two (i.e. value 15).
What would happen if an Encapsulation Sub-TLV needed to include a Tunnel
Type? Which registry would it pull from? Would the value used depend on the
protocol it was signaled in?

5) I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps has to be a normative reference.

6) Given that some of the references are to in progress documents for the
tunnel types, is it expected that the values will correspond to future
versions or are they nailed to this particular version or something else?


Nits:

a) Sec 1:"Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv6 in IPv4
      networks as described in [RFC5565]"
s/IPv6 in IPv4/IPv4 in IPv6 for one of the two

Regards,
Alia