Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10
Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 01 November 2021 19:12 UTC
Return-Path: <yingzhen.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 6FA9B3A2DB1; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:12:52 -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 D_89UHOL_DBf; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 A08DB3A2DAD; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id k1so4233181ilo.7; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WQBG21/T255gCDx+WuA8wYYycpsQkW5831LAZLcr8yA=; b=cfMpVBM2D0tgDgshUeJTN4dK4Th+cpWAQ42BNXYlg8iPsY2QcId+p4+zj94QPDHaos dnwnGHpUMktX27TXg3fyl1bRsEwek8B6AFz4ZDqzIJzfvnTDTlZeJdG5YRwgsUfXg3zC 0b0DwBPizRnv+nfk7VAYvXosDR/rebfN+Xd0dCbdGiQbe+iLtnPQ7cCOwXd+gXpahlhb DFVb2g9aMZIcjGlAF/Af+QsLVeroNOxPirfVJcILI4MPXR1HLNSG0J5D3X5nCLG/Od+b j9v9Qy94Ro+7qfwG21QsJwABrnw1U76ulKYZ0ISmmEvmiKqmDjQsQcSMd3jhWXTsHaEN tp5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WQBG21/T255gCDx+WuA8wYYycpsQkW5831LAZLcr8yA=; b=ToXF0hzs5kZJQdL6vjLG95vo2xUpsXs6DoVJBlyTCHo8bfPVK9pMUKdM3USskkNN2P KJbfFN/CJeIeh+BtacJ8nrmfB7FPZgoeKC0TNrMl0hmKoxw2XFazzBZLYCDvFRmaJcx8 0hfxCOkU1YpQXS0lfQncVsbRduYc7j1Hn/VcTSTfcnxqe1KieHR3w5kCUaMc8LLB6L07 zLBZcQxUSGynILCuXCK0aLpt79zfLokleg1mrc/V4+j2MtVA8pODnDzCrsR+Wnc0cmqe 5ALb+ejCIZiv9JJxBe4tjrLNWe0Eh5Bti1CcY/d1faWlXKlj0FNKvsIDrOjA/8+jMxHe 5eLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OIDA3LsqS0BA978pMUaSgsE03qz7iZwMprFLr313llCl+SKW2 9ZHr2lfPEx0Unoa0tQLJILrWVKboFnCySf/8PvLzs40=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyu7ZJVW5J2fdzRP/lxwqaGoLkzw+MxJGV1GLtwZKrIhVV1CPT09TJb+tnAO/Tod9jTa2DtqNTDQPqqlqZ3k/4=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c569:: with SMTP id b9mr5590006ilj.39.1635793961946; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 12:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163340195394.25879.4844991617031244413@ietfa.amsl.com> <PH0PR11MB52056DC4CAE6F82783E3C69DC1839@PH0PR11MB5205.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB52056DC4CAE6F82783E3C69DC1839@PH0PR11MB5205.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 12:12:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABY-gOOUQ=A21UFxvueHgJDOYo+o=iBXRPkD0KUKaM3=Y=4UKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ananya Gopal (ananygop)" <ananygop@cisco.com>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000712b405cfbef659"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/5hcyg4xNcNaGhnNT5t-cAiF1chg>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10
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: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:12:53 -0000
Hi Ananya, Thank you for addressing my comments. Your reply looks good to me, look forward to the next version. Thanks, Yingzhen On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 2:26 PM Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <ananygop@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Yingzhen Qu, > > > > Thank you for the detailed comments.. I have made the changes, but will > only be able to submit on 2021-11-06 23:59 UTC (IETF-meeting local time). > > Please find my comments inline. > > > > C1: > > The IESG state of this draft is “Dead”. This might be a system error, but > > should be fixed. > > *[AG]* Stig/Mike, could you help with this? > > I see https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg. I think the > committee will have to change this. > > > > C2: > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3446 > > *[AG]:* I understand that RFC 3446 is not a normative reference, rather > an informative reference. Changed. > > C3: > > The line numbers are from idnits output. > > Question: > > 251 * When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, > > 252 the DR MAY send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) > > 253 to the RP instead of multiple Register messages with the > N-bit > > 254 set ([[RFC7761]]). > > > > 256 * The RP, after receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message > MAY > > 257 start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) > to > > 258 the corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop > > 259 messages. > > Why is "MAY" used here instead of "SHOULD"? > > > > *[AG]* I have changed it to SHOULD, It is clearly mentioned that both the > RP and DR support this capability in this scenario. > > > > C4: > > Section 6 > > 288 the router should not advertise the capability. However, an > > 289 implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if > they > > 290 are received. > > For this case, which format of register-stop message the RP should send? > > > > *[AG]* Once the network manager disables the capability, the RP should > only send unpacked Register-Stops. > > > > C5: > > Section 8: > > For this case, it is suggested that the DR can send an unpacked PIM > > Null-Register. How can the DR know that the packed Null-Register message > > is not lost? > > *[AG] * > > If it is lost then we may send unpacked register, we do not expect this to > be a common occurrence. > > I think when we implement it would be preferred to not revert immediately, > since as you say there could be a single drop. The period here is until the > FHR reverts to unpacked registers. But it is left to the implementation how > quickly to revert. > > > > C6: > > Nits: > > * Warning from idnits because reference to RFC 8174 is missing. > > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even > if > > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph > with > > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > > > RFC 8174, paragraph 11: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > > > ... text found in draft: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in > > ......................................^ > > all capitals, as shown here. > > *[AG]* Fixed as suggested. > > > > * There are several places in the draft that an extra "[]" is used. For > example: > > 298 MSDP [[RFC3446]] as well. > > s/[[RFC3446]]/[RFC3446] > > Please fix them all. > > *[AG]* Fixed as suggested. > > > > 25 This document defines a standard to send multiple multicast source > > 26 and group information in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a > > 27 packed format. We will refer to this packed format as the PIM > Packed > > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. > > "in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a packed format." This is a bit > > confusing, as it should be a new message called "the PIM Packed > Null-Register". > > > > *[AG]* Fixed as suggested. > > Changed it to: > > This document defines a standard to send multiple multicast source and > group information in a single PIM Packed Null-Register message. > > We will refer to this new packed format as the PIM Packed Null-Register > format throughout the document. > > > > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. This document also > > 29 discusses the interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > > 30 understand the packed message format with multiple multicast source > > 31 and group details. > > It should be interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > understand > > the packet message format and routers which do understand it. > > *[AG]* Changed as suggested. > > > > For section 5, case 2 and 3, it should be added that after receiving > > DR's PIM Null-Register message, it sends Register-Stop message. > > *[AG]* Changed as suggested. > > > > Thanks, > > Ananya > > *From: *Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > *Date: *Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:46 PM > *To: *rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org> > *Cc: *draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org < > draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing.all@ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org < > pim@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-10 > > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review result: Has Nits > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this > draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing/ > > 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 has gone through two working group last calls, 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. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing > Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu > Review Date: 10/04/2021 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be > considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > The IESG state of this draft is “Dead”. This might be a system error, but > should be fixed. > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3446 > > The line numbers are from idnits output. > Question: > 251 * When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, > 252 the DR MAY send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) > 253 to the RP instead of multiple Register messages with the > N-bit > 254 set ([[RFC7761]]). > > 256 * The RP, after receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message > MAY > 257 start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) > to > 258 the corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop > 259 messages. > Why is "MAY" used here instead of "SHOULD"? > > Section 6 > 288 the router should not advertise the capability. However, an > 289 implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if > they > 290 are received. > For this case, which format of register-stop message the RP should send? > > Section 8: > For this case, it is suggested that the DR can send an unpacked PIM > Null-Register. How can the DR know that the packed Null-Register message > is not lost? > > Nits: > > * Warning from idnits because reference to RFC 8174 is missing. > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even > if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph > with > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > RFC 8174, paragraph 11: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > ... text found in draft: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", > and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in > ......................................^ > all capitals, as shown here. > > * There are several places in the draft that an extra "[]" is used. For > example: > 298 MSDP [[RFC3446]] as well. > s/[[RFC3446]]/[RFC3446] > Please fix them all. > > 25 This document defines a standard to send multiple multicast source > 26 and group information in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a > 27 packed format. We will refer to this packed format as the PIM > Packed > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. > "in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a packed format." This is a bit > confusing, as it should be a new message called "the PIM Packed > Null-Register". > > 28 Null-Register format throughout the document. This document also > 29 discusses the interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > 30 understand the packed message format with multiple multicast source > 31 and group details. > It should be interoperability between the PIM routers which do not > understand > the packet message format and routers which do understand it. > > For section 5, case 2 and 3, it should be added that after receiving > DR's PIM Null-Register message, it sends Register-Stop message. > >
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pim-n… Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-p… Yingzhen Qu