Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251F012D8D4; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=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 jqflQXikFza1; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (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 4EE5912D5D7; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u134so269158009ywg.3; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Grtm8eO+xtmRCq02YHnZTitc2RFmgVpKha0oPy09q2I=; b=rWNwxwoh0dWDnVooLBNsgJwSDplimH7BX2UBtWQY3rocguOsLJljX7o4rBGN5+c1gm d/OneSZdEVZ3QJ72P4OCX5GmiKWhocIB29DH0qux8O1bz8LJF0QeEhsKYkbnLbQ+8POn L1wOTuHPneAZ6r9ObJKozg2qVj8zss4cFn7TNdeAvOATiyqZ5t4HJtU9XAb0kw1muVUa W7NXVzqaBM1lYmu++xPYDBhrDfLhFjsJ5naDT1Nzz1NOuYaQMdY0Z9MJHNlfvyZVlqyU aMnjU58xaF0qWRvcR7kVXe19kgzCqQV2Ii3xnZFjJeC0xd3n1hDdrM81FgD0/I+zHCWI cETw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Grtm8eO+xtmRCq02YHnZTitc2RFmgVpKha0oPy09q2I=; b=MSaLUSDemlZ+pUhC9vWnXG1byWlY46tj0SkXFRT5v/dCKzPJ/ziTrQ+6CRst+DlTMM 3YscAQ2qW0TF/B9Ekx4DI+oWwARflX3SDTvDASklNPsozQGqj6J2tEjdRx2Eg8xyY+A2 +VlAxoorWAAl5ssL97xUjKu4ITVjU78yrJJF8u5n/lu0u0wG8BUnt1jrKsRFxcQgf/zS xMTid3E8Ws4Mmk5Uv8wb4UCJDeKkI5MuEY3qtzFo8UFliPPmWrXImVRenqaXxO86fpte Tsq2hW4zm+NY+5225z3/NNaGE7SSjoKikhjdXxfJLQbZRHBtLDlECp/OPBgoTAXr3Z/S 6BLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousRMOGup6I6Y+E4eHecul3paK3/0qMmgxF0/QSkw7Wb0De4AHxWVv8of3IGhZB1EQRUWJdOWNoViovgfw==
X-Received: by 10.129.102.193 with SMTP id a184mr65788036ywc.63.1470410093509; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.210.211 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F620574@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcJMsGeCvSGhUztqFaOVMQafxRmopuTwGcXnOdnTQgt3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F614F50@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CA+RyBmU7qmEJxO3nmTNVKkDAmpc=4piPAHsrJdpxzv=_orchqA@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F620574@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:14:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVz2V-PVg3T6WYM7ACGcPkfOgG3QUfKLfHEq=iRgijkDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114901c04c428305395487b5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-ooam-dt/jMFrTiCG0_dH8nPEZrApxym72V0>
Cc: "rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org" <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06
X-BeenThere: rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: List is used by the Routing Area Overlay OAM Design team for internal coordination and discussion <rtg-ooam-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-ooam-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:14:57 -0000

Hi David,
I'd be glad to work with you and authors of the NVO3 architecture document.
Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions on the OOAM
requirements document. And perhaps the tag of the section can be changed to
Operations and Maintenance to use interpretation of OAM provided in RFC
6291.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> [-nvo3 list]
>
>
>
> Would you and the other members of the overlay OAM design team be
> interested in working with the NVO3 architecture draft authors on a
> reasonably short replacement for Section 12 of that architecture draft
> including a reference to the ooamdt requirements draft?
>
>
>
> Here’s what Section 12 currently says (and I won’t disagree with Alia’s
> critique of it):
>
>
>
> 12.  Operations and Management
>
>
>
>    The simplicity of operating and debugging overlay networks will be
>
>    critical for successful deployment.  Some architectural choices can
>
>    facilitate or hinder OAM.  Related OAM drafts include
>
>    [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement].
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 1:34 AM
> *To:* Black, David
> *Cc:* Alia Atlas; nvo3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org;
> rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> greatly appreciate your consideration of draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-01.
> If you have comments, any questions, suggestions please share them and
> we'll work to address them in timely manner.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alia,
>
>
>
> > I will optimistically send this document to IETF Last Call - but the
> authors do need to update this section and respond to my other concerns.
>
>
>
> Thanks for doing this.  Regarding your Major concern:
>
>
>
> >  i) I note that draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 expired
> about 3 years ago.  Section 12 basically says that
>
> > OAM is important and punts to this draft.  I believe that you will need
> more details.
>
>
>
> Would it be acceptable to provide a little bit more in the way of details
> and then point to draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-01 ?
>
> It seems preferable to have overlay OAM requirements discussions in the
> context of that draft rather than this NVO3 architecture draft.
>
>
>
> For your first minor concern:
>
>
>
> >    1) Please add C-VID to the terminology.  It is used without context
> in 3.1.1.
>
>
>
> I think we should rewrite that sentence to just eliminate the C-VID
> acronym, e.g.,
>
>
>
> OLD
>
>    Note that the handling of C-VIDs has additional complications, as
>
>    described in Section 4.2.1 below.
>
> NEW
>
>   Note that there are additional considerations when VLAN tags are used to
>
>   identify both the VN and a Tenant System VLAN within that VN,
>
>   as described in Section 4.2.1 below.
>
>
>
> Everything else appears to be useful editorial suggestions.
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>
>
> *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 6:14 PM
> *To:* nvo3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org
> *Subject:* AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06
>
>
>
> First, I would like to thank the authors, David, Jon, Larry, Marc, and
> Thomas, for their work on this draft and pushing it to completion.
>
>
>
> As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06
> before progressing it.  I do apologize for the delay in my review; I had a
> lot of documents show up quite quickly this winter and spring.
>
>
>
> My primary concern is around the operational and management
> considerations.  My detailed review is below.   I will optimistically send
> this document to IETF Last Call - but the authors do need to update this
> section and respond to my other concerns.  If they are timely, then this
> can make it onto the IESG telechat on August 18.
>
>
>
> Major:
>
>
>
>    i) I note that draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 expired
> about 3 years ago.  Section 12 basically says that OAM is important and
> punts to this draft.  I believe that you will need more details.
>
>
>
> Minor:
>
>
>
>    1) Please add C-VID to the terminology.  It is used without context in
> 3.1.1.
>
>
>
>     2)In Sec 4.1:  "While there may be APIs between the NVE and hypervisor
> to support necessary interaction, the details of such an API are not
> in-scope for the IETF to work on."
>
> Could this be softened to "not specifically in-scope for the NVO3 WG to
> work on"?  If there were agreement that the NVE and hypervisors need
> interoperability, I could see APIs being in scope.
>
>
>
>   3) It looks like work on draft-ietf-nvo3-dataplane-requirements-03 has
> been abandoned (which is fine).  Please remove the reference.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
>
> a) In Sec 3.4, it says "in use today".  Replace with "in use in 2016" or
> the like - since the RFC will live for a long time and not be updated with
> "today" systems.
>
>
>
> Regards & Thanks,
>
> Alia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>
>