IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway.txt

Ravi Singh <ravi.singh.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 27 June 2020 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ravi.singh.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480113A0B1A; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 hB_0jhEOly7S; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2d]) (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 8DD213A0D7C; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com with SMTP id h18so5520087qvl.3; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=o0van+bZZ/s1LYl5ezcxTKwoxzL8rdQBMGZfHAPj8vo=; b=qrd6erIn259jxao1pD8ETfH1vk8JeZ+m18ZHpCb09snlVMz9qyrKW0NIMzKyDPcEED y8hsMPdAnBmJJAVxEMnZkVWP7Ob8rAvF6JaJPkAKMiWtw021Y91R3jPxwyvC88rOSxCg ov+bGLZKpDjGCJof+TeQgvUHweNQLqFSOZBpVEuhx1rRBNXmHFWgOKHAwZHL+05ofdJ4 Rs45WVXzm9pCX4TChvALXoSaZAGkoRj3QbPdk+NUVxdNkBa/skw05wWxjjVHIMCI5j0r Gbp1PyRxX3KOV/RYCJG9B1kGtf5oSCEDgP/lIPuzy3s/OiJSEfqmyrbauDdp62+0fIZK w1Uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=o0van+bZZ/s1LYl5ezcxTKwoxzL8rdQBMGZfHAPj8vo=; b=XS5xQMQOBibzevh2kKPr/FzUX8z2JLBmifhveYmnzQpS9c5acAFlVbb40ccDu6OgYW 1BUtfXQY7XVnmsVLsZBcAHFeDQSd36cATxrFfaYWRXe6uo9qKI9TvCDA6Y9rbWtGDrJz VJoJAjZk0+HThTfjwXkZyRQR4cLeA1erCeridLnNeqItCibe/fPr6rv4682hmdcbk0yB 5Fo8THf+crtC4CBJ4BJbozj+B+9uuX/EDjH5GNmWpxmZ/sG9qDhbdUHmNGd3Pf9atOQf e1f9xHtsGHJeI0dxk2Y9dIP4KNBuYcQClUKt3OX9JJgLXP0oIKEtUS+C+vq089+J3sO/ +vNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312EqBMqaJL/8mvGrW6zJXCYGzrEeSn8/SLGTwXWZIyLF0FRY7F K3AhyJ0T8a7r2cs3oJfYCW1BGg2v
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKWvcR2lDf8WZYyUuzophP/JSsO/gfCe7CzNTrmik2s4o002119JqGasaLvaH5VND1tD7TNg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f842:: with SMTP id g2mr6777122qvo.181.1593241879477; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-67-164-105-241.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.164.105.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d13sm2949454qkj.27.2020.06.27.00.11.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ravi Singh <ravi.singh.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C020E315-1324-446B-86FA-BC9CE4FC87B1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <F332AC77-53C7-456C-A377-739272ECA0AD@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:11:17 -0700
Cc: bess@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org
To: bess-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/-PtoL1B6sAlr6My57WixeSaADrM>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 07:11:22 -0000

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway/> 

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway/>.txt
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 06/26/2020
Intended Status: Standards track (but is it the right one? Should this be informational instead, since no new encodings are explicitly specified)

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.

Comments:
1. Draft track: does this need to be "standards track”? No new encodings are specified, even though there are requests for new IANA code-points.
2. Section 3:
	a. Auto-discovery: setting the route-target to SR-ID: how to avoid conflicts in regards to route-target settings: some may represent the SR ID and other represent non-SR constructs? Some text in that regard would be helpful.
	b. The draft would do well to explicitly state what happens if the GWs in a given domain end up getting configured with different SR IDs.
	c. Is there a specific reason why neither the format for the SR tunnel TLV is listed nor a pointer given to a pre-existing definition in another doc?
3. Section. 5: could use an example with reference to figure 1.
4. Section 6: would be useful to describe, or provide pointer to section in the tunnel-encaps draft, stating logic for picking a specific encapsulation for a given packet.

Regards
Ravi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email