[Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 11 February 2015 13:43 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C85D1A020B for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:43:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 UEBPUPY1lulH for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D0D1A88E7 for <pals@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1BDhnPQ012914; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:49 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([147.67.241.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1BDhmYn012890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:49 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:47 -0000
Message-ID: <001801d04600$c3880500$4a980f00$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdBGAMA2d0PGMJxxRFWBx89bikyfhg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21320.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.811-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.811-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: ACR6/w6Xu9smMPeO88gK4Jmug812qIbzI6PHNDZGGCJx1e3NhjX9AgLy tDvV39h+WaxkNY6kd1FMmA9tcmg666zhltbr4ieESDkh6bW+bcfDHSNFHFxB84/3XmwYL6wXlH6 REwfgTaPUg+y6COSIz1hburlxMV66Nz3arY9rXDFv/kcFnp29GMWmFF22SfTeNEJplIoT86ytEa JoVjyWkHfn38Y6FzfCcvWg/OaDgpvahTn6VbgBfghWgIsZuXlPi5HIU7NNYTtUpGoOQ+xYPNRlm yjfMuuvcQCuF/XfYV/fneWgb0wCfiNzasiERINGwVaayvK71l+Hxi2fvkKUMwKuzaGO/CS0ECQK EjaJtErDFTAyHGiUXRWuzt5TM5SUKjApJatVtPL5wpfrIJDXew01qijvfqtTRjHvrQ40NxZPUlg vloBTvdK3HgQ0usXGYdhOxLNYjq5EzgCL/Ep/1C16avtSdnx4TJDl9FKHbrk+gR+s21UkWFIabP lFhEZ2tOmsfDD36U8S/JVm5D0BLITTleJu/a70fJfrSYxpv0juHZGuwo6K7flCTMBh1cL5R7ay5 iMyAy/furdq7OAI0fSfd2i2bJB6iq265D4ITu9AwvZYEy8IBQkN8Uvsy+ntrGn3BSxZVNShBQx5 Ez+1KFrElBrhQGksEevkLUFjxqY7qx9KsdZAWN35+5/2RxqmVX7TxgU0dK42t9SD70TDbfM+9Fw 01I7Gq21tE291w6E0xqqu7JyWhGLfiGU0E6WUpNFSZ+CYM859LQinZ4QefL6qvLNjDYTwfY9hsM 0xN70qtq5d3cxkNQP90fJP9eHt
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/RjPhzZ8d2kI95NHVbYnluT6iYMM>
Cc: pals@ietf.org
Subject: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:54 -0000
Hello authors, I have done my usual AD review of your draft. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the document is ready to go forward for IETF last call and IESG evaluation, and to catch any issues before those stages in the process. My review has uncovered a number of issues that I would like you to address before I advance the document. You may make the changes and post a new revision, or you can discuss the issues with me and tell me I am wrong (very happy if you do that! :-) Additionally, if you can find someone who is interested in this work who can perform an English language review for you that would be really helpful. If not, the RFC Editor will try to fix up the English, but there is a risk that they will break the technical meaning when they process the text. I have asked the PALS working group for a volunteer, and Ignas Bagdonas (ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com) has offered to help. Please contact him direct. But you might also know someone who could help with this. I suggest that you wait for this review and then combine it with the fixes to the comments I have noted below. In the meantime, I will mark the I-D as "revised I-D needed". Thanks for the work, Adrian ==== idnits notes some problems with the references. == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 981, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC6310' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp has been published as RFC 7275 --- The document shepherd noted: > Also, as I was writing this up, I noticed in several places that there > was a consistent typo that transposed "RFC 7275" as "RFC 7257". > > There is one additional typo I noticed during final review, for > consistency with RFC 7275, the term "Redundant Group (RG)" should be > "Redundancy Group (RG)". This comes up twice in the draft. Again, this > can be fixed by the RFC Editor. Please fix these issues now. --- Your IANA considerations section needs some work. You need to say: The IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)". It has a sub-registry called "ICC RG Parameter Types". IANA is requested to make 13 allocations from this registry as shown below. IANA is requested to allocate the codepoints in a sequential block starting from the next available value in the range marked for assignment by IETF review 0x2000-0x2FFF). All assignments should reference this document. Parameter Type Description -------------- --------------------------------- TBD1 STP Connect TLV TBD2 STP Disconnect TLV TBD3 STP System Config TLV TBD4 STP Region Name TLV TBD5 STP Revision Level TLV TBD6 STP Instance Priority TLV TBD7 STP Configuration Digest TLV TBD8 STP Topology Changed Instances TLV TBD9 STP STP CIST Root Time TLV TBD10 STP MSTI Root Time TLV TBD11 STP Synchronization Request TLV TBD12 STP Synchronization Data TLV TBD13 STP Disconnect Cause TLV Now you will need to go through the document and replace the specific numbers you have used with the "TBD" indicators in this table. --- 3.3.4 has two fields that need more explanation... - Pri The Instance Priority How is this field interpreted? Does a higher or lower value indicate a higher priority? - InstanceID The instance identification number of the MSTI. Where does this value come from and how is it encoded (presumably in line format). --- In 3.4.1 - InstanceID List The list of the instances whose topology is changed as indicated by the Topology Change Notification (TCN) Messages as specified in [802.1q] Section 13.14. Assuming this is a list of InstanceID values as found in 3.3.4 you need to explain how this list is formed. Does a list with two entries look like 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | InstanceID#1 | InstanceID#2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Or like... 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | InstanceID#1 | rsvd | InstanceID#2 | rsvd | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Or like... 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | rsvd | InstanceID#1 | rsvd | InstanceID#2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ If the first case, how do you set the length field for the TLV? --- In 3.4.2, I think you can say the exact vale of Length. --- Also in 3.4.2 you have four fields conveying time values. You need to tell us what units they are in. --- Section 3.4.3 defines a TLV with a strange name. The "STP MSTI Root Time" has no concept of "time" carried in it. Perhaps the remaining hops refers to the "Time To Live"? It would be nice if the text explained this. --- Also in 3.4.3 I think you can say the exact value of Length. --- Also in 3.4.3 there is an InstanceID using 16 bits, but it appears (from 3.3.4) that InstanceIDs only use 12 bits. --- Section 3.5 - Request Type 14-bits specifying the request type, encoded as follows: 0x00 Request Configuration Data 0x01 Request State Data 0x3FFF Request All Data Curiously, this is a 16-bit field. Can you help us to understand where the 14 bits of information are placed in the field. --- Section 3.6 - Flags 2 octets, response flags encoded as follows: 0x00 Synchronization Data Start 0x01 Synchronization Data End Are you saying you cannot set both "Data Start" and "Data End" on the same message? If so, then what you have defined is one flag. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=0x004B | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request Number | Flags |S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The S-flag occupies the least significant bit of the Flags field and is interpreted as follows: S = 0 : Synchronization Data Start S = 1 : Synchronization Data End But if you allow start and end on the same message you need two flags. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=0x004B | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request Number | Flags |E|S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The S-flag is interpreted as follows: S = 1 : Synchronization Data Start The E-flag is interpreted as follows: E = 1 : Synchronization Data End If is not valid for both flags to be clear at the same time. Please decide which you mean. Now, also please tell me about the other Flags. Will they ever be defined? - If "yes", then I think you need a new IANA registry, and you should point to the new subsection of Section 6 that you will need to write. - If "no", then I think you should mark the field as Reserved and not Flags. --- While the ICC security considerations apply here, I think Section 5 is a little thin. It seems to me that using this approach, an attack on ICC (running in the provider's network) can break not only the ability to deliver traffic across the provider's network, but the ability to route traffic within the customer's network. That is, careful attack on ICC can break STP within the customer network. Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps you need to discuss this.
- Re: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Ignas Bagdonas
- [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Mingui Zhang
- Re: [Pals] AD review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp Mingui Zhang