IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 AEEC81295C5; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.518 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 3BfxKwbXDpYP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD4CF129465; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2450; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476334326; x=1477543926; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9X4BCxtmbXzjTIJ0fEYLrh4R0cNr78GJvv+yPks7+yU=; b=WwI+wyR7blpsIDsVlW5iC/Frr0D/weAcxTFlKt3USGoqll1e9ttl7Itw WcJ0dZp+ddHQRRn6ELdhoFGv0aQOg0mAyRlejLsdXOzAvQerIE3u6zxiO s4UmcfVWRcZ2MESHrGWRwWEoSIjlMrzeIp7OGy16kLMbku16U+aW+p9BZ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BYAgC3Ef9X/4cNJK1cHAEBBAEBCgEBgzwBAQEBAR1XfAEGjS2rOIIKJ4V6gXg4FAECAQEBAQEBAV4cC4RoOjQLEgEcGQlCJgEEDg2ISA7DNgEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBAQEBH4Y9iVuFIAWGH5NjAYYmhgeDSIF1ToQZiSCMeYN+AR42UIRkc4djgQABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,338,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="335153815"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Oct 2016 04:52:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9D4q56K017143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:52:05 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:52:04 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:52:04 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt
Thread-Index: AdIlDGbEteE6XBc2S9KfU0CJ2WmMXQ==
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:52:04 +0000
Message-ID: <729f9d8ce3bf4678ac80a7d2bb3a1975@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.92.150]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/sh0JX_iu0skMrXPy1LNMqUShzJM>
Cc: "l3sm@ietf.org" <l3sm@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:52:08 -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-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt
Reviewer: Les Ginsberg
Review Date: 12 October 2016
IETF LC End Date: 11 October 2016
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

This is a well written and excellent document - impressive both for its
attention to detail and its breadth.

I have one significant concern.
I have also identified a number of editorial issues.

Comments:
I have not followed the work on this document nor am I subscribed to the WG
mailing list - so it is possible my comments do not account for some
discussions that have occurred as this document progressed.

Major Issues:
The document mentions in Section 7 that the definition of the service model
assumes that a number of YANG models for network elements will be provided.
In the list is "QoS : classification, profiles".

Looking at Section 5.12.2 of the document, it seems that the definitions
could easily conflict with the definitions which we would expect in a
network element QOS model (e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-asechoud-netmod-qos-model/ )

I wonder if it would be better to eliminate much of what is in this section of
the draft and defer to the QOS config model?

I would be interested in the authors views on this point.

Minor Issues:

None

Nits:
I have prepared a "marked up" copy of the draft with a significant number
of recommended editorial changes. As the most expedient way to provide this is
by sending the entire document - and as that is large - I prefer not to send it
to such a wide audience. I will therefore send the marked up copy directly to
the authors. Anyone else who would like a copy please unicast me and I will be
happy to send it.

    Les

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email