[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05.txt
Harish Sitaraman <hsitaraman@juniper.net> Wed, 23 May 2018 20:09 UTC
Return-Path: <hsitaraman@juniper.net>
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 1408112D778; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 QWN4PkMRuvmY; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 28D3B127010; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4NK9Di9019514; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=HeMCuDZYJ3pSsp/STbxStgOFFEje1fTHbKJ/03zEHII=; b=Riv91tEot0eOzVU5t7QtN7iUXVjY4sSXB1ZLNo10J+3rhOTkJywqUj16lfisrkYV2QrN 6w3QIgcwUALEoeuAt4TS0qS2s9DyZcARWTcw1c8rdPBPYA2O+1a373l7tXa2lhl2XvGh L2GQDzVwi7TccuqHL5A5uIm+J6Ab3o9Q5ZQRM8l/JzLJFqtK8W4CgsQ3ugyV1vls1G8q V6EbL2DaaQMSFYmHQMGpA+WmGAZ7PTuuW2pqz4yQ23PwJBF1sjYEJ6c5+DPuhdpqP2m3 E1ZkbBMh0U1449nw0tGIduSVoUwn2ZYycwZzlMpBG+As6do/Kwn8uUgQKGzkepVNe1Tb IA==
Received: from nam01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01lp0179.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.179]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j5df3r62u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2018 13:09:21 -0700
Received: from BN7PR05MB3923.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.132.216.10) by BN7PR05MB4545.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.248.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.797.8; Wed, 23 May 2018 20:09:19 +0000
Received: from BN7PR05MB3923.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::890c:4309:6aa9:a8cb]) by BN7PR05MB3923.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::890c:4309:6aa9:a8cb%3]) with mapi id 15.20.0820.005; Wed, 23 May 2018 20:09:19 +0000
From: Harish Sitaraman <hsitaraman@juniper.net>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHT8tHuFNWGlh/rA0yezqtr8M0oVg==
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:09:19 +0000
Message-ID: <24346049-C4F5-493D-AA4D-3C7D48477DBE@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN7PR05MB4545; 7:k3/T+c7vA8NEK9B7nAYsw0T6IDlvFDM5nmpDC3zgHVgYiS9YKGSU1ANfRQ6PwZ2EW5pGmP1rf56a2in/T/lvm1gVIaeQ1EJfecqPem36yvokgflspsTx1bGnv4OsBO6P3+4Mnop0Wo7Yxzhez2Xe5gzdqGSg5R8qogT78Xs/dBEeUlCUTeFWsT7ccVaRePdHJHH0efwsBRE+R0XNcausVszvZrKGlzYztZmJcC2Ovh2RQ0GU48rWHU3fQCZB/XYA
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4545;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR05MB4545:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR05MB4545BC0D7D7EDCBF1158CCD3C26B0@BN7PR05MB4545.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4545; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4545;
x-forefront-prvs: 06818431B9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(39380400002)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(106356001)(5660300001)(105586002)(8676002)(2616005)(81156014)(476003)(81166006)(6506007)(2501003)(2351001)(25786009)(14454004)(36756003)(54906003)(6916009)(6436002)(58126008)(316002)(59450400001)(8936002)(486006)(5640700003)(68736007)(2900100001)(99286004)(33656002)(6486002)(5250100002)(97736004)(82746002)(450100002)(26005)(4326008)(1720100001)(966005)(6116002)(3846002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(2906002)(186003)(478600001)(83716003)(102836004)(6306002)(6512007)(305945005)(7736002)(66066001)(86362001)(53936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4545; H:BN7PR05MB3923.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: VM8iVmC3XPEY1TUbDXGYXVpob1m5f3o9H9iTORql7nKh6lDqr90bMclzrDrzg3yOBQ0dLaBzOE4I2LMAJu4HF61j3B0+3azyZsyygzXs2nxkQWuam6J44gcdmgoSVFANmQ7E15aHO5U1DBOFZgeah4h8xzT5h27VVbHEFNj6YW7kbThtCXfvbuoMQCSKC5zy
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <806020E8D3629C4E9DC73D61FBAF75FA@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 9e56a2da-7fab-4ec5-1e27-08d5c0e9112d
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9e56a2da-7fab-4ec5-1e27-08d5c0e9112d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2018 20:09:19.0563 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR05MB4545
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-23_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805230197
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/hCKriAWrjtmMMBeC8zLyuP07qNU>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:09:27 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05.txt Reviewer: Harish Sitaraman Review Date: 23 May 2018 IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document is well written. The context is specified: RAC has been issuing more Ethernet addresses starting with 0x4 or 0x6 and existing ECMP implementations may examine the first nibble after the MPLS label stack to determine whether the labeled packet is IP or not. This can cause unreliable inference of the payload type at transit routers that may have been inspecting the first nibble. For my understanding, it would be useful to know how section 5 relates (or offers more clarity) to the recommendation that CW MUST be used - the solutions in section 5 are known for better ECMP and applicable regardless of whether the packet has the CW. With the statement "However in both cases the situation is improved compared...based on the five tuple of the IP payload.", is the point that hashing would be "improved" (for some definition) since incorrect identification of payload is corrected but yet we cannot precisely steer the OAM packet along the specific ECMP path that the data packet may have taken? What is the intent behind the final paragraph in section 5 considering it mentions the existing stacking order of labels between PW, LSP and EL/ELI - could this paragraph be removed or should it also mention the flow label position from Fat PW? Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: Section 2: RFC2119 has been updated by RFC8174. Nits: Section 5: LSP entropy labels specified 'in' [RFC6790] Check if style consistency for references might be useful: Section 4: RFC6391 [RFC6391] vs. [RFC6391] vs. RFC6391 - all are used in the document. Similarly for RFC6790 references. Section 4/5: EL - expanded first in section 5, 3rd para "entropy label (EL)" but used earliest in section 4. Might be better to expand ELI too. -- Harish
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet… Harish Sitaraman
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethe… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethe… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-ethe… Alexander Vainshtein