Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

All good, and thanks, Jorge, for taking the time to make the changes.

Barry

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:30 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Barry,
>
> Thank you very much for reviewing.
> I addressed all your comments, see below.
> Thanks a bunch!
> Jorge
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Secdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> Zhaohui Zhang <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM
>
>     Reviewer: Barry Leiba
>     Review result: Has Issues
>
>     The "issues" I call out below are minor, and if the working group
> thinks they
>     aren't worth dealing with, I'll not be offended nor lose any sleep.
>
>     — Section 1 —
>     I’m sure that all these terms are defined in the normative references,
> and ’tis
>     a small thing, but it would sure help a non-expert reader if this list
> of terms
>     included, for each term, a citation to the RFC that defines it.  I
> hope you’ll
>     consider adding that; thanks.
> [JORGE] I added a few references. Hope it's better now.
>
>     [Follow-up; I finally found “Tenant System” defined in RFC 7365, which
> is not
>     in your references at all.  Please don’t make your readers work that
> hard, and
>     please consider beefing up the references and citations to
> definitions.]
> [JORGE] added now.
>
>     — Section 2.1 —
>
>        If the term Tenant System (TS) is used to designate a physical or
>        virtual system identified by MAC and maybe IP addresses, and
>        connected to a BD by an Attachment Circuit, the following
>        considerations apply:
>
>     I find the wording “if the term Tenant System is used” to be odd.  Are
> you
>     really saying (maybe you are) that the application of the
> considerations
>     depends on whether or not we *call* it a Tenant System?  Or whether or
> not it
>     *is* a Tenant System?  From the definition I found for “Tenant System”
> I can
>     see that maybe this can go either way.  But if we’re talking about the
> latter,
>     I’d use wording more like, “The following considerations apply to
> Tenant
>     Systems (TS) that are physical or virtual systems identified by MAC
> and maybe
>     IP addresses and connected to BDs by Attachment Circuits:” (cast as
> plural,
>     because the considerations use plurals).
> [JORGE] I took your suggestion, thx
>
>     — Section 3.1 —
>
>     I initially couldn’t figure out, as I was reading this, how you’d know
> whether
>     you’re dealing with v4 or v6 addresses, and, therefore, how to
> interpret the
>     lengths of the IP Prefix and GW IP Address fields.  I finally got to
> it seven
>     bullets down, where you say, “The total route length will indicate the
> type of
>     prefix”.    Maybe someone already expert in this would find this OK,
> but to me
>     it was too much work to sort it out, when I think it could be made
> clearer like
>     this:
>
>     NEW
>        An IP Prefix Route Type for IPv4 has the Length field set to 34
>        and consists of the following fields:
>
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |      RD   (8 octets)                  |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets)           |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  IP Prefix Length (1 octet, 0 to 32)  |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  IP Prefix (4 octets)                 |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  GW IP Address (4 octets)             |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  MPLS Label (3 octets)                |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>
>        An IP Prefix Route Type for IPv6 has the Length field set to 58
>        and consists of the following fields:
>
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |      RD   (8 octets)                  |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets)           |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  IP Prefix Length (1 octet, 0 to 128) |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  IP Prefix (16 octets)                |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  GW IP Address (16 octets)            |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>         |  MPLS Label (3 octets)                |
>         +---------------------------------------+
>
>        The total route length will indicate the type of IP Prefix (34 for
>        IPv4 or 58 for IPv6) and the type of GW IP Address. The IP Prefix
>        and GW IP Address are always both IPv4 or both IPv6; mixing the
>        two is not allowed.
>
>        […and then follow with the explanations of the fields…]
>     END
>
>     Do you agree that that makes things clearer?
>
> [JORGE] ok, done
>
>     — Section 3.2 —
>
>        o If either the ESI or GW IP are non-zero, then one of them is the
>          Overlay Index, regardless of whether the Router's MAC Extended
>          Community is present or the value of the Label.
>
>     Should that say “then the non-zero one is the Overlay Index”?
> [JORGE] ok, good point, done
>
>
>
>
> --
Barry
--
Barry Leiba  ([e-mail])
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/