Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 14 February 2018 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF5B1289B0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 1nbHwLD5-WW5 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x244.google.com (mail-lf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38761270FC for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id w10so17445651lfc.9 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dH8bE5HknX8Qx1Yt0kYnaUejJh+JgaWEHQIZP/aiFFo=; b=jG/8BLxDMhFNxWCgFsBzxiujO/B2Y5Rw9S76lwFKjpZWvAWuGI2F6l79RbInKEIkO8 LMHWDC8EemwuLnsyCEePCs2pZPn8jQuw+0RA36KsLrJKj/k9lT9FRFVgkB8jKSE4ucYN gXarKKKY59j4nlTxDAdi56HdxEry7opnkDlGuqGcdc66UubAR+Vn7x60d3kRVHa28cDE 2WCv5pb0TONolAHTVBCQHeYVKX69hiHAsl1WN6P+1zgrcuIVFGnS+1D4iv/Q9a8OSXGz TZImhDuMZSU8vgnrtUl1wMxD/IRIwitjK3DGZP90Q+gXk4GpBRIEaxbMeM51IJCumjGc ux7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dH8bE5HknX8Qx1Yt0kYnaUejJh+JgaWEHQIZP/aiFFo=; b=bi6nLy6mJAQxWvsSkC6kpS9pvVEgQpL6v7xfHxQOlG1au1+5DGTCn+7kL44CJsPcHT 5dd+9tzMlWZ+4EVip90cvTgiskELHtWL/6l7bTJQHTGRpWn4PqQwq3rcFT0n9V7ajzvI 1nRiKu5qviEPAyeOIKNVhf6L7Ic8grLm7JrAEkymT+3bMJjex4Q61g84EMSKllv6uYhh L+DBrlRb8Q2uFIn6bzATW6aXvpU69wgUvhpQRwQF5mh2C/ne2yHmNvIlOmq2l9iZtxyx CRYX0oMTTsNef/+WJDzAOr2yXvY1Axn7r6QnqM/9k9dX7YPULmb6QWvTSeQ7qTHOqWPO 7AiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPB/fZrKc0zh1pk5vZ3/6B2XzjUTuWbJla4wEDkR/rFj/Tctzj4T HWRjPXZt59KrldChTELA2KNku6DWRqfqpxRmimI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224SbyJx6U7YKjcNeBTQrScAuzBPHNaA4aMpidH4S/ock8MCGkp4fyB1WwNAiQKJz/PKkhbtZl4MyePUAle5RcY=
X-Received: by 10.46.118.20 with SMTP id r20mr3619125ljc.11.1518625653720; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.83.91 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EDB10A38-0C11-48AC-A8F5-EC0490DB7B93@cisco.com>
References: <201802050933130673047@zte.com.cn, > <6A6D7325-7FF0-4269-A0B0-92AFB253963D@cisco.com> <201802081314229933172@zte.com.cn> <A856C686-EE42-44EF-B1A5-67323A778D88@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXyoy7zihmKPhsUtiwseEBxnB=8pBYcYopyNYRWvskSiA@mail.gmail.com> <64212BC6-28B3-4552-AFAB-A7EF55A5C9A2@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmV6L+7DN=9ZvM5obs4XKpVHTiD7n88VSnzW-Zzdjoxw8w@mail.gmail.com> <EDB10A38-0C11-48AC-A8F5-EC0490DB7B93@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:27:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWerTp6LY1HWrMM-cHnXmNT8nHfSwQ-fgtubk8m7NrsaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: "gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com" <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="f4f5e8079c94a32ae805652e9683"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Iorv0_M9_hfk7CkS6L4fPCApoow>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:28:35 -0800
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:27:41 -0000

Hi Carlos,
thank you for your kind help and support. Accepted your suggestion and have
proposal to resolve somewhat twisted references in the replacement text:
OLD TEXT:
Otherwise, update the
      Detection Time as described in Section 4.11 above.
NEW TEXT:
If bfd.SessionType is
      MultipointTail, then update the Detection Time as the product of
      the last received values of Desired Min TX Interval and Detect
      Mult, as described in Section 4.11 of this specification.

And I've attached the newer diff to the working version.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
>
> Thanks for the very expeditious response, and iterations addressing may
> comments!
>
> On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
> thank you for your prompt response to the proposed updates. Indeed, I've
> missed your comment. Please find my follow-up updates under GIM2>> tag.
> I've attached diff to highlight the changes.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hi, Greg,
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carlos,
>> thank you for your thorough review and detailed comments.
>>
>>
>> Anytime — but just to be clear, this is not a thorough review. I spent a
>> quick scan through some sections only, which triggered these coarse set of
>> comments.
>> GIM2>> Still, many thanks. And it would be of great help if you can find
>> time to do more detailed review and share your comments to both documents.
>>
>
> Thanks! I’ll do my best to find time for a detailed review.
>
> Please find my responses in-lined tagged GIM>>.
>>
>>
>> More inline.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Greg,
>>>
>>> When looking for this specific sentence, I got a chance to scan through
>>> the document a bit.
>>>
>>> It seems to me there are still a number of editorials and potentially
>>> non-editorials to be fixed.
>>>
>>> Looking at S4.8 only:
>>>
>>>    BFD packets received on tails for an IP multicast group MUST be
>>>    consumed by tails and MUST NOT be forwarded to receivers.  Session of
>>>    type MultipointTail MUST identify the packet as BFD with the help of
>>>    destination UDP port number "3784" on IP multipoint path.
>>>
>>> CMP: There are a number of “the” or “a[n]” articles missing.
>>>
>>> CMP: What is “with the help of”? What is "port number "3784" on IP
>>> multipoint path”?
>>>
>> GIM>> Agree, will remove the quotation marks around 3784. Proposed update:
>> OLD TEXT:
>>  Session of
>>    type MultipointTail MUST identify the packet as BFD with the help of
>>    destination UDP port number "3784" on IP multipoint path.
>> NEW TEXT:
>> Session of type MultipointTail MUST identify packet received on an IP
>> multipoint path
>> as BFD control packet if the destination UDP port value equals 3784.
>>
>>
>> Who identifies the packets? The "session"? Or should this be the
>> tail/receiver/tailend?
>>
>> GIM2>> Would the following clarify it:
>>
>
>
> OLD TEXT:
>  Session of
>    type MultipointTail MUST identify the packet as BFD with the help of
>    destination UDP port number "3784" on IP multipoint path.
> NEW TEXT:
>
> Node with
>    the BFD session of type MultipointTail MUST identify packet received
>    on an IP multipoint path as BFD control packet if the destination UDP
>    port value equals 3784.
>
>
> Thanks! It is clearer now.
>
>
>
>>>    For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>>>    is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" and
>>>    "127.0.0.0/8" range for IPv4 or "0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104" range for
>>>    IPv6 ([RFC8029]).  Packets identified as BFD packets MUST be consumed
>>>    by MultipointTail and demultiplex as described in Section 4.13.2
>>> .
>>> CMP: The first sentence is very confusing (besides the “MUST use” that
>>> you already called out and that I agree).
>>> CMP: For example, is this the source or destination endpoint? Which
>>> address is this (i.e., Destination)?
>>>
>> GIM>> Since the sentence refers to MultipointTail, I conclude this refers
>> to the destination endpoint. As Reshad agreed to s/use/expect/
>> here's proposed update to the sentence:
>> OLD TEXT:
>>    For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>>    is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" and
>>    "127.0.0.0/8" range for IPv4 or "0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104" range for
>>    IPv6 ([RFC8029]).
>> NEW TEXT:
>>    For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>>    is used, MultipointTail MUST expect destination UDP port 3784 and
>>    destination IP address in 127.0.0.0/8 range for IPv4 or
>> 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for
>>    IPv6 ([RFC8029]).
>>
>> GIM2>> I hope I've got it now:
>
>
> OLD TEXT:
>    For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>    is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" and
>    "127.0.0.0/8" range for IPv4 or "0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104" range for
>    IPv6 ([RFC8029]).
> NEW TEXT:
>    For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>    is used, MultipointTail MUST expect destination UDP port 3784.
>    Destination IP address of BFD control packet MUST be in 127.0.0.0/8
>    range for IPv4 or in 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6
> ([RFC8029]).
>
>
>
> My point was different — sorry if I was not clear.
> It was that RFC 8029 does not talk about any ranges in the context of BFD.
> The sentence reads:
>    Destination IP address of BFD control packet MUST be in 127.0.0.0/8
>    range for IPv4 or in 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6
>  ([RFC8029]).
> But why that citation? RFC 8029 does not specify the destination IP
> address for BFD control packets. I’d stop the sentence and add a new one
> like “The use of these destination addresses is consistent with the
> explanations and usage in [RFC8029].”
> Or similar.
>
>
>
>>
>> In addition to pointing to RFC 8029, for things like Section 2.1, etc.,
>> this is a new requirement. RFC 8029 does not specify the use of those IP
>> addresses with UDP Port 3784. Hence the citation should go on a separate
>> sentence.
>>
>>
>>>    Use of other types of encapsulation for multipoint LSP is outside the
>>>    scope of this document.
>>>
>>> CMP: For BFD Control?
>>>
>> GIM>> Will add 'of the BFD control message over' and remove 'for' to
>> result:
>> Use of other types of encapsulation of the BFD control message over
>> multipoint LSP  is outside the scope of this document.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>> Also, checking the following section:
>>>
>>> 4.13.1.  Reception of BFD Control Packets
>>>
>>>    The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].
>>> …
>>>       If bfd.SessionType is PointToPoint, update the Detection Time as
>>>       described in [RFC5880] section 6.8.4.  Otherwise, update the
>>>       Detection Time as described in Section 4.11 above.
>>>
>>> CMP: The actual set of citations is not clear. If this is a replacement
>>> to section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880], then why a citation like “[RFC5880] section
>>> 6.8.4"? Isn’t it implied that it is RFC 5880? Or conversely, if it is a
>>> replacement updating RFC 5880, how does “in Section 4.11 above” work when
>>> inserted in RFC 5880? Its ask relative :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Seems you missed this comment.
>>
> GIM2>> Right. The text requires update:
> OLD TEXT:
>        If bfd.SessionType is PointToPoint, update the Detection Time as
>       described in [RFC5880] section 6.8.4.  Otherwise, update the
>       Detection Time as described in Section 4.11 above.
> NEW TEXT:
>       If bfd.SessionType is PointToPoint, update the Detection Time as
>       described in section 6.8.4 of [RFC5880].  If bfd.SessionType is
>       MultipointTail, then update the Detection Time as described in
>       Section 4.11.
>
> GIM2>> RE: references to RFC 5880 in this section. I think that they are
> useful as long as this is separate document. Once someone will decide to do
> 5880bis and in fact replace section 6.8.6, the references should be removed.
>
>
>
> The problem is that the section starts with:
>    The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]
>
> But the procedure is not self-contained so as to be a replacement for a
> section of RFC 5880, because it ends with:
>    update the Detection Time as described in Section 4.11
>
> Hope that clarifies,
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Carlos.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> —
>>> Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com
>>>
>>> *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make
>>> myself sound more photosynthesis."*
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 AM, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Reshad,
>>>
>>> thank you for your consideration. I've came across what looks as simple
>>> editorial change. Appreciate your comment.
>>>
>>> In the second paragraph of section 4.8 Packet consumption on tails the
>>> following
>>>
>>>   For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
>>>
>>>   is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" ...
>>>
>>> reads akwardly because, I think, of 'MUST use'. I propose simple
>>> s/use/look for/ or s/use/expect/. What do you think? Is the text god as-is
>>> or minor editing may help?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Greg Mirsky
>>>
>>>
>>> Sr. Standardization Expert
>>> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
>>> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2.jpg> <24242e5637af428891c4db731e776
>>> 5ad.jpg>
>>> E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
>>> www.zte.com.cn
>>> Original Mail
>>> *Sender: *ReshadRahman(rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>;
>>> *To: *gregory mirsky10211915;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
>>> *Date: *2018/02/08 11:03
>>> *Subject: **Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)*
>>>
>>> <Sorry for the delay>
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would go with normative SHOULD. What you proposed below is fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Reshad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *"gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com"; <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>;
>>> *Date: *Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM
>>> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org";
>>> <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
>>> *Subject: *Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Reshad,
>>>
>>> you've said:
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While OOB mechanism would improve security, my personal opinion is that we should try to improve security without requiring an OOB mechanism. I think we can add text to the security considerations to address the concerns below, e.g. A tail SHOULD prevent the number of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams.  The concern expressed in b) cannot be fixed by what I proposed because of multiple streams.  So just preventing the number of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams should be good enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Reshad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we make it normative SHOULD, i.e. s/should/SHOULD/ in the third
>>> recommendation to the implementers:
>>>
>>>      The implementation SHOULD have a reasonable upper bound on the
>>>
>>>       number of MultipointTail sessions that can be created, with the
>>>
>>>       upper bound potentially being computed based on the number of
>>>
>>>       multicast streams that the system is expecting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or keep the lower case as it is consistent with the rest of the section,
>>> e.g. 'a MultipointTail session should not be created'?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Greg Mirsky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sr. Standardization Expert
>>> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
>>> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image001.gif>
>>>
>>> <image002.gif>
>>> E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
>>> www.zte.com.cn
>>>
>>>
>>
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-13.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-14.
> txt.html>
>
>
>