[RTG-DIR]Re: [6lo] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06 - reliability

[Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Joel.

Coming back to the intended status of the document…

In you last mail you stated: Given the pervasiveness of multi-connectivity, it seems that if you want (as stated above) standards track for this document, the document really needs to say how it works in such environments.

With the last revision, do you still consider that standard track is not the appropriate status?

As a reminder here is what we (the co-authors) replied  previously:

This is not new routing/forwarding technology, it is a different way to encode source routing.
Further, in IoT, we rely a lot on academic implementations and papers to validate our tech, for the lack of big companies / big investments
like in core internet or cloud. Experience tells us that academia only implements and evaluates proposed standards.
As a personal note, the “new” part is really the source routing encoding, other than that, PASA works using existing standard track machinery.

Ciao

L.


From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2024 16:04
To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [6lo] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06 - reliability


I think that provides sufficient coverage of the resilience problem I was concerned about.

Thank you,

Joel
On 9/18/2024 9:34 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote:
Hi Joel,

Hope you had a wonderful summer.

I am rebooting this threat to solve the remaining issues.

Let’s take it one at a time starting with the multi-connectivity part.

We just submitted a new revision extending the reliability section in order to address your concern.

This following link brings you directly to the side-by-side diff, so that you can directly check the improved section:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-07&url2=draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-08&difftype=--html

Have a look and let us know.

Ciao

L.


From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2024 17:36
To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06


Thank you for the changes intended to address my concerns.  I have trimmed your responses, retaining only those where I think further discussion is appropriate.
On 7/23/2024 11:17 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote:
Hi Joel,

Thank you a lot for your review that certainly helps in improving the document.
A new revision has been submitted this week, hopefully addressing your concerns.
Direct answers to your comments are inline.

Ciao

L.

From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [6lo] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06
Date: 7 July 2024 at 21:04:57 GMT+2
To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Not Ready

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ddraft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing/

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.

This review is provided in response to a request from the working group for
review before working group last call.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06.txt
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 7-July-2024
Intended Status: Proposed Status

Summary: This document has issues that need to be addressed before working
group last call.

Comments: Before describing my concerns, let me note that this is an
interesting and well-written document.

Major:
   The first major issue is one that is either easy to remedy or quite
   controversial.  This document describes a major change in the routing and
   forwarding technology for certain classes of cases.  As such, it seems that
   experience with the work is needed before the IETF should mark it as a
   proposed standard.  This draft should be an experimental RFC.  And it
   should include a description of the evaluation of the experiment.  Which
   should, in my opinion, include a clear description once experience has been
   received of the reasons why neither the existing 6lo work nor the very low
   overhead babel work are sufficient to address the problems.  (The draft
   alludes to the former, but does not provide evidence of its claims of need.)



[LI] I may agree that we were a bit too optimistic and at this stage we are no yet able to provide large scale deployment experience.
However, we discussed this comment among the co-authors and we think that standard track is still a valid status.
This is not new routing/forwarding technology, it is a different way to encode source routing.
Further, in IoT, we rely a lot on academic implementations and papers to validate our tech, for the lack of big companies / big investments
like in core internet or cloud. Experience tells us that academia only implements and evaluates proposed standards.
If PASA fails that test, we'll do a PASA 2. But we need std to get that test at all.

As for the problem addressed (and described in section 4), this document does not claim that existing solutions, like RPL and BABEL cannot do the job.
This document proposes a different approach that lowers even more the overhead.
This comes at the price of not being suitable for mobile environments (and the proposed use cases are mostly wired).



<jmh> changing the basic forwarding paradigm still seems major enough to me that I think we need community-understandable evaluation of it.  And it, as you say, the existing technologies work, then we need some clearer evaluation of the benefits of such a change.  If you really think standards track is appropriate, then it seems to me that you need such an analysis in this document. </jmh>


   The second major issue is that, as far as I can tell, the draft assume a
   single configured root router, with no provision for failover if it fails.
   And apparently, if the root fails and some other root takes over, the
   entire system must be renumbered.  Even though the draft goes to great
   lengths to require all routers to have persistent storage for address
   assignment state.  While section 12 states that multiple roots are beyond
   the scope of this draft, the degree of protocol adaptation apparently
   required to cope with this makes such a claim prohibitive for a standards
   track document and questionable even for an experimental document.
   (Multi-connectivity is simply too common to be able to evaluate the
   experiment without including that capability.)

[LI] Reliability is extensively discussed in a separate document, which includes the multiple root case.
Merging the two documents would make the overall document long and not necessarily more clear.
Section 12 states clearly that the multiple roots case is included in [I-D.li-6lo-pasa-reliability].
<jmh>Given the pervasiveness of multi-connectivity, it seems that if you want (as stated above) standards track for this document, the document really needs to say how it works in such environments.  You could do that by making an explicit normative reference to a second document that describes it, but then you are normatively coupled to a document which, if I understand your answer, is not yet even adopted by the working gorup.  Your choice.  </jmh>