Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 22 April 2024 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 41557C151082; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOE7M_9gYXBQ; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM04-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam04on2124.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.102.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95F98C14F74A; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=iW02vw9WXPxG0hfl0xOlx5ohG7sA9tTHZF8MistbONJFySzFlNuVuAEJQLnqPuSGkl2UIc0gkXn7IMEan0n6DVmPZ+KKOS2AfjvdcIslxl0t0WCrHJ+GZHwRRt61WAZltSfachVUiBtgrkK39AsGjCjpTIjK/yOZeWGdEeDMO5SHU/pUdhHgCBA7LK1FBmJvMbtsTiBSyOMWOigHRI557SR8FUQOTHqL2MqoBkHVLtop515OrxHWTL67VtaLaJSXR0ybj2MguHqxz+QZxIMT9+QeclvRbixbbHprq/8k6Hga1OMW/SVeT3TwvMm691w6+T8AFpqgdQYS1h6Ai4JUEQ==
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-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=z2kLv7WEEYzA6LRGVyKj4sqCFEYTWM1tO4RxruKmAqw=; b=g74EaSH+DcP5TD5lx72Pm2Ulzg8OrOqDS3GZZf9H1nyis6HR3Ghjt/glL3Wt8ZNILZVcZq4nLH4wDcz7T4gbfeDGFUq5r5qLt3r1OL9q4UdpdGumOQrYtrrDZL7G/kNWMvWUXbeeTTShZ0dyMuitaNJBcf3pVndtd8xe8/C4xXYHhgshUEURomEmwDL8tXoBeNRmvq+2XxXA7R3uTZR9uWL3RU+pbgLI8dECPf3mDnHFmdh440QJ947NAPCrVRVqxFEOxUP4hwNEA/TY//p9k97d329R6anW2bsSNthggeuJ2LxhsS6T+lJg8iMdIZua7ytkqUGw7QHARztIkZOomg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 104.47.58.100) smtp.rcpttodomain=futurewei.com smtp.mailfrom=ndzh.com; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=ndzh.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0)
Received: from SJ0PR05CA0148.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:33d::33) by SJ0PR08MB6720.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:2d2::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7472.44; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:56 +0000
Received: from SJ5PEPF000001CC.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:33d:cafe::ec) by SJ0PR05CA0148.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:a03:33d::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7519.20 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:55 +0000
X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 104.47.58.100) smtp.mailfrom=ndzh.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=ndzh.com;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of ndzh.com designates 104.47.58.100 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=104.47.58.100; helo=NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com; pr=C
Received: from obx-outbound.inkyphishfence.com (44.224.15.38) by SJ5PEPF000001CC.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.242.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7519.19 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:55 +0000
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10lp2100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.58.100]) by obx-inbound.inkyphishfence.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED38579E4; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:98::12) by DM6PR08MB6220.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1ef::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7472.44; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:51 +0000
Received: from CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7744:8abd:9769:c2bf]) by CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7744:8abd:9769:c2bf%7]) with mapi id 15.20.7472.044; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:51 +0000
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12
Thread-Index: AQHak+PbkTYhjZO6a0+pPz+FgdSB0bF0T3HxgAAcVvA=
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:29:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR08MB6611CDDC14FDCAC7B4FF17A1B3122@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <171370097593.34977.18348102734454699963@ietfa.amsl.com> <VI1PR0702MB35676B16803A3947D7472EDBEB122@VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0702MB35676B16803A3947D7472EDBEB122@VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO1PR08MB6611:EE_|DM6PR08MB6220:EE_|SJ5PEPF000001CC:EE_|SJ0PR08MB6720:EE_
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: b7de047d-c8c7-4f5d-9754-08dc62e10fc8
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Untrusted: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info-Original: 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
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(1800799015)(376005)(366007)(38070700009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO1PR08MB6611CDDC14FDCAC7B4FF17A1B3122CO1PR08MB6611namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR08MB6220
X-Inky-Outbound-Processed: True
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Exchange-SkipListedInternetSender: ip=[104.47.58.100]; domain=NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-ExternalOriginalInternetSender: ip=[104.47.58.100]; domain=NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStripped: SJ5PEPF000001CC.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id-Prvs: 36be8eee-4530-479e-5c8c-08dc62e10d52
X-IPW-GroupMember: False
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:44.224.15.38; CTRY:US; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com; PTR:mail-dm6nam10lp2100.outbound.protection.outlook.com; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(1800799015)(82310400014)(376005)(36860700004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-OriginatorOrg: ndzh.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2024 15:29:55.0954 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b7de047d-c8c7-4f5d-9754-08dc62e10fc8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: d6c573f1-34ce-4e5a-8411-94cc752db3e5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=d6c573f1-34ce-4e5a-8411-94cc752db3e5; Ip=[44.224.15.38]; Helo=[obx-outbound.inkyphishfence.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SJ5PEPF000001CC.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR08MB6720
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/9yHgA1sYoMi-BPUeiX7hQ8icRVY>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 22 Apr 2024 15:30:07 -0000

Matthew:

I think strengthening the sentence that indicates that the frameworks security considerations should be taken together with those in the requirements document would work for me.

Sue



From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 10:06 AM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12

Hi Sue Thanks for your review. These overlapped with addressing some comments from the review by our AD. I will make updates to v13, which I just posted, based on your review. I am fine with your nits
External (matthew.bocci@nokia.com<mailto:matthew.bocci@nokia.com>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2FmNGQ3NmQxMjk3ZGE4YTNlNGQzY2IzMzAzMGRmYTIzLzE3MTM3OTQ3ODguMTY=#key=bc2bf319695eb5680efefe4e14a7dd9f>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi Sue

Thanks for your review. These overlapped with addressing some comments from the review by our AD. I will make updates to v13, which I just posted, based on your review.

I am fine with your nits and will address them.

Regarding your technical suggestion to pull in more from the MNA framework security considerations, I am a little reticent to just take a snippet from the framework security considerations without the broader context of how MNA might be deployed. We already have a cross reference to the MNA framework security considerations, but maybe that sentence could be strengthened to indicate that the frameworks security considerations should be taken together with those in the requirements document?

Matthew


From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>>
Date: Sunday, 21 April 2024 at 13:03
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org> <rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.all@ietf.org>>, mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=nok.it&t=h.eJw9jUEOgjAQAL9CejYtZWtbOPGVpVssQSiBNRqNf9d68DqTzLzEbb-KrhKJeeuUWvMsJ1bxweJUibmYNXLeL7o-e9vqRh0J93j0Kz2TDHlROBpylnTTOkKPEA1BGABqqGnEBpR2GlxrnPdS21KNpbogc4p3OeQQpv67nbDkiqff9U_eH9fhMN4.MEUCIHksIGzBdDI6uYVJ5FPyeksIxmuA0wluD2Q_CfBSelrlAiEAoidUOYDpp3XC6BI3MoQeydtfO1x1-IQO065QranrO24> for additional information.



Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Nits

Status: Ready with NITS

Summary: No Technical issues were found when examined with:
- draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04
- draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-07

One technical suggestion:
I think more of the MNA framework security consideration should be pulled into
this document to cover: - current network boundaries using filters that form a
trust boundary, - differences with new boundaries that impact that trust
boundary.

By reference of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk, one can find the technical material.
However, a bit more in the text would help the reader.

MPLS-chairs,
Thank you for your patience in waiting for this early review.
Sue

=====================
NITS
1. Requirement #33
Why: Grammar and sentence clarity
Old text:/
   33.  NAIs MUST only be inserted at LSRs that push a label onto the
        stack, e.g. head end LSRs and points of local repair (PLR), but
        can be processed by LSRs along the path of the LSP./

comment: The text
"/, the use of ".e.g. head end LSR and points of local report (PLR), /

is confusing and difficult to read.  Consider rewriting the sentence.

#2 Requirement #39.
Why: Grammar and sentence clarity - the "i.e." detracts from clarity without
adding value. Text:/
   39.  A network action solution specification MUST state where the
        NAIs are to be placed in the packet i.e. in-stack or post-stack.
     /
Suggested New text:/
   39.  A network action solution specification MUST state where the
        NAIs are to be placed in the packet i.e. in-stack or post-stack.
     /

#3 Requirement #47
Why: Grammar and sentence clarity. "inserting" and "that"
Current text:/
   47.  An MNA solution MUST allow an LER inserting ancillary data to
        determine that each node that needs to process the ancillary
        data can read the required distance into the packet at that node
        (compare with the mechanism in [RFC9088])./
Suggested text:/
   47.  An MNA solution MUST allow an LER that inserts ancillary data to
        determine whether each node that needs to process the ancillary
        data can read the required distance into the packet at that node
        (compare with the mechanism in [RFC9088])./

#4: Section 5, paragraph 2, second sentence
Why: Grammar - Commas in sentence make it difficult to read, "labelled"
(spelling ?).

Current text:/
   Furthermore, an LSR may insert information into the
   labelled packet such that the forwarding behavior is no longer purely
   a function of the top label, or other label with forwarding context,
   but instead is the result of a more complex heuristic./

Perhaps consider a rewrite.
New text:/
   An LSR may insert information into a label packet such that the
   forwarding behavior is no longer a function of either the top label or
   another label within the forwarding context, but a result
   complex heuristic. /

Thank you for your patience in receiving this early