Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

"Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)" <mkoldych@cisco.com> Mon, 22 February 2021 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mkoldych@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399FE3A1335 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:16:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=cjlXOmET; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=uwuTaRLW
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 nN-XmcqOgoWc for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7723A1334 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5171; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1613992594; x=1615202194; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Touo/q1BjOkGKdXw/Dw58LI4v+GRpUdmH2sK3pTW9Lw=; b=cjlXOmETsHUrZd5Xxgybn0pKvD9DWGRdDVt/u5eD4WojXOwrZ9c51T3c fEI0q89fSYuIPeduRadLG/gYYWa7DluyyJQkxb3dsJtB+yN+v9i5AcLU5 bmTb93hLfmrDywB2eaQlzszbzkWS6z2iDtCzaSFxxq5gBRlYsw4EJXiFw Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:vfm4+xxefQWtsFLXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9psgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRaFt/9xh1jPW4jQ97RPjO+F+6zjWGlV55GHvThCdZFXTBYKhI0QmBBoG8+KD0D3bZuIJyw3FchPThlpqne8N0UGEtr1YFvUr3auqzUVH0a3OQ98PO+gHInUgoy+3Pyz/JuGZQJOiXK9bLp+IQ/wox/Ws5wdgJBpLeA6zR6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIBgA7kTNg/4wNJK1YChwBAQEBAQEHAQESAQEEBAEBQIFPgVNRB3ZaNjEKAYd+A44NA48aigaCUwNUCwEBAQ0BAR0LCgIEAQGETQKCDQIlOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRxhWENhkQBAQEEAQE4BgEBJQcLAQsEAgEIEQQBAQEeECcLHQgCBAENBQiCZIJVAy4BDqJ8AooldIE0gwQBAQaFBBiCEgMGgTiCdopLJhyBQUGBEUOCKS4+gl0BAYEyL4NIgiuBWXE+JgQUBgMFIQcJIjkgHW8LOZtknGKBCwqCe5V2hkSDMTuKEpVGlEmCCZs/AwuEOAIEAgQFAg4BAQaBayOBV3AVO4JpUBcCDY4fDBYUgzmFFIVFczgCBgoBAQMJfIoIAYEOAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,197,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="773807845"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Feb 2021 11:16:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 11MBGXpa018025 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:16:33 GMT
Received: from xfe-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.122) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:32 -0600
Received: from xfe-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.123) by xfe-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:32 -0600
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xfe-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:32 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LN5/g3RHwljmePYJ8EwxTeSrSHEa1iR94u63H9CJDjXR8EQGarVugvHSbFRd6Lw8Dz4/0bst485tmehQpiK8WP23fWkxIZAdQcWhjv1mBeNXC203yEETWAFeXHIGXk2cTnfAJHo0aFeFU6xOvypLbLystzHJGcEghsivgFUIdZiO4eAM67EEBOWj7yijYZ77Y7HGq1PL6/5RDYtjpi4sMIylT2oU/SAa0ahtXj/hvgc0DHC7JFVvrPKBdnRjGCKb5Th34PpMTfu4NlzVriw0gJ04gNWTLrpJIx+7cLoNzn+3TeZQx0MCGRc3CO4VdyuQny8WP6HjnY/hWtqC2PRDFg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=pR/q6INKC1da4o7LuNv9VM+oZ0xxivv6foZGOixV4rc=; b=eMikBwnKI/oweyBGZoqgEie8tSMBAuliHu2R/CX4k2ZA3OC9pxFRILZwNhbC+n//PVL8uaAdF8nrXaedIRCWZdtktIRWEsRRpRyCk+0T2020Zdj7zqJNJqUtRAI9x+W+TZibsC2Q39bNpLxyF1RxOXGbSwUnWStAEF3RjGKpD4RaId2qQrCvKEcufmegzfWuPMmhn/HELOoeHCMa5649v2/bDeiLjBxs0sWRJJEDnXLu7NfxOPtrxyHulza444YhYekRwSyrgKlr8r96jpb43wh4KQIaZ1DXz11f7hr98BChxOu0SL9arqXvbxvEtPMSMy2YSUFEXhfG/lzf/+PQog==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=pR/q6INKC1da4o7LuNv9VM+oZ0xxivv6foZGOixV4rc=; b=uwuTaRLWCCaa6QSsg0QRXoEsGBng1KQxeee0qIjhMwgLjDplWKbyRSxmtOqvVzzbeemFskAao8K7lvCtP7lFOwvhwJn+sfVbY8s5fKFTEWWdLowcXbo7KRmMwGxD/kuoBgXk5Hb4FxgyDeQSPSEegWNTlRXMrl2A3u8W5lqyX5s=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:143::30) by DM6PR11MB2987.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:65::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3868.32; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:16:31 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fdcb:9bd4:a6eb:48cc]) by DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fdcb:9bd4:a6eb:48cc%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3868.032; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:16:31 +0000
From: "Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)" <mkoldych@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp
Thread-Index: AQHW+IjKJhIOrkvlxUGXEa21GFN0CKpLD/GAgAEUgQCAEC+KAIABfmOAgAGyr4CAAZMFgIADDibQ
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:16:31 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB380296E44BE0854B06C3F0AED3819@DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <557499ee-62df-102e-3da4-7fd386b7ff98@orange.com> <AM7PR07MB6248748F50E97F6EBBDC5623A0B19@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn4-CVSiciw22MRMzW7QrBd2B-_w9q+NqROi=JXDCqHr2Q@mail.gmail.com> <AM7PR07MB62487FBAC51E63F4D6274B70A0869@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <14095_1613644507_602E42DB_14095_31_10_da0642af-1a00-9a5e-763b-f1edc6912fcb@orange.com>, <AM7PR07MB624894B38113F181F1B038D2A0849@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <VI1PR07MB6256E100AED2FCBC674C872EA0839@VI1PR07MB6256.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB6256E100AED2FCBC674C872EA0839@VI1PR07MB6256.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: btconnect.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;btconnect.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [174.112.148.189]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 50f5456a-e2e9-4783-e30c-08d8d7234e8c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB2987:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB29872EB4F3A3B1C1A5E95C6ED3819@DM6PR11MB2987.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6790;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 8KieSHf79SI8Qcle4PtXQ6Tt0NIAYm7MQhiiDYvvsrvkVqPYjOoNLCqHwjKv4RJuIhM3InZsMVN95En2F8ETJ381UOIojs8MtFlcUnRfNRa900kbyoaCC+xumsIpRF49r/jojjzV4a2sExUkBmG9Luy0AaRtaUKuc2niXkUCRqIaGUWLeFMU6UJomES7KPNeNM2+17gShyd6n/hq1qBAU1nCnthBOrHFvTBbOZhzsAVYpTG06of/myGqRUWFEGppmOoen6DX0DuBFFoNgpNCeKUGoPyxWTCcqwAWaJ/zQzfH1DukgXb0I892s2zH5KpBshgCsb+xX8XN/7X7MhJ+TW3L5Y1uqqJ+fIiwB51EHYEZPvlr7KLquhj2WPTceo7SGTz/ndDZlBHvRxsdbSTa1AY7NVH6NPClCF9nRSz58/1RHwf7XAtIXxWcuI3YhkNXe2neK48deigrYiItdvMulyCGyguUFXt1iYP5KI0OO/tnY3q5012m4hh0+ztoCwJrN+azqs2qKlQI5vvcnw9YOopBgXyCuJnDDEXIWr2/+zKELes6pvLvweG5Dc/qjBtR7XempJ4dZG1BtlJIMFUvUU1fVInwyMDNaw7zeQYuH3k=
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(136003)(346002)(396003)(4326008)(8676002)(52536014)(8936002)(33656002)(9686003)(26005)(186003)(66476007)(66556008)(66946007)(64756008)(66446008)(76116006)(110136005)(71200400001)(6506007)(5660300002)(316002)(7696005)(53546011)(83380400001)(296002)(2906002)(55016002)(478600001)(86362001)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 50f5456a-e2e9-4783-e30c-08d8d7234e8c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Feb 2021 11:16:31.3548 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: CLEmrn86REkgPf1QnZvrfNzgbiuIk4U0k/Lvir3W3c6muLOnPZJMD8j5apd4PX43mwJeXB1owrW4cUF6rE5g9A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB2987
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/PfPKtPoq6e9YX7VHN_UPPXkk4Hs>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:16:37 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks a lot for your review, the -03 version should address your prior comments. Please log any new comments against the -03 version.

Thanks,
Mike.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 7:33 AM
To: julien.meuric@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Sent: 19 February 2021 12:30
To: julien.meuric@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

From: julien.meuric@orange.com <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Sent: 18 February 2021 10:35

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

<tp>

The more I look, the less I like it.

This I-D asks for an error code for missing mandatory TLV, a category which PCE has defined  as Error-Type 6 and is referenced  by such as pce-vn-association.

Why does this I-D put missing mandatory TLV in a different Error-Type?

I will raise some more issues next week.

Tom Petch


Some of the issues you point out are easy to address and we've already requested the authors to revise the I-D accordingly. To fully resolve your concern, could you please point any other specific parts where you feel you have to "interpret the words the way you think they should have been"? If you even have some text to suggest, that could smoothly ease the update.

<tp>
At a first glance,

s.7.1
RFC8697 names three  columns for the registry; those names do not appear here.

The new association type is given a different identifier in different places.  The preferred identifier needs to be nailed down since it is going into IANA forthwith and will be confusing to change thereafter.

s.7.2
This requests new error values  under Association Error  and specifies a Type of 29.  RFC8697 specifies a Type of 26 (29 is Path Computation Failure).

'Conflicting SRAG TLV' I find rather vague; conflicting with what?  Likewise 'Multiple SRPAG from one LSP'

s.7.3
This document defines five new TLVs
That is TBD3, TBD4, TBD11, TBD5 and ....

RFC8697 specifies the names of the fields in the registry,  Those names are not used here.

s.3.2
'as of the time of writing' will change its meaning as the I-D progresses; date needed

s.4.1
'is only meant to be used'
MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT, .....?

'Policy Identifiers uniquely identify..
Policy Identifiers consist of Color.. Endpoint, optionally the policy hame.
So if one is Color red, Endpoint NY no policy name and then one is requested for Color red, Endpoint NY, policy name standby that is a different triplet and so valid.  Mmm. I can see that being mis-implemented

s.4.2

'is meant to strictly correspond'
MUST, SHOULD, ?

s.5
This document specifies four new TLVs...
These five TLVs .....

These five TLVs encode the Policy Identifiers, SR Policy name, Candidate path identifiers, candidate path name and Candidate path preference..
That is five TLV. Wrong! That is four TLV and something completely different.


When any of the mandatory TLVs
Only one TLV is listed as mandatory SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID.

s.5
At most only one .. can be carried
and then goes on to describe the carriage of  more than one; 'Only one ... SHOULD be present in a ... (whatever identifier you fix on) message.  If more than one is present, only the first is processed and subsequent ones are silently discarded.

A Normative Reference to an unadopted I-D that expires next week is not a good look:-)

Like I said, the word that came to my mind was 'sloppy':-(

Tom Petch

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien


On 17/02/2021 12:46, tom petch wrote:
> <snip>
> <tp>
> I am sure that IANA will cope because they always do, but it will be by reading between the lines, applying intelligence to what the authors may have meant, and so on.  Editorially this is a poor I-D (as yet), and that quality verges on the technical aspects.
>
> Thus 7.3 says the I-D defines five new TLV and lists four; this also occurs in the body of the I-D.  A reader might also notice the absence of TBD2 and wonder.
>
> Or the new Association.  Thus needs an identifier.  Trouble is, the I-D uses (at least) three different ones; this looseness of terminology can lead to problems down the line.  (MPLS I see as a classic in how not to specify IANA registries and I see this heading the same way).
>
> Likewise the identifiers used in s.7 do not match those in current use, a good way of storing up future trouble.
>
> Is the specification adequate?  Only if you do not take it literally and interpret the words the way you think they should have been.
>
> Tom Petch
>


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce