Re: [sfc] AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Sat, 12 August 2017 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DE2132422 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 f2LHerWVPI9Y for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680171323BC for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11620; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1502500205; x=1503709805; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+OVAYP1RybMEq6VM0F8qr4Yk+MQGTfXMILex1MRMRBo=; b=drLBR8agbO4Ft4Lk16js6+mCeW3P7q40DubTODHJX7XzBuAhWUxlwAsl fIWZDYT4aOcBPiUz6Bm7f4A7vC/ITCUg4ehq8Q+YuOtG3aCEPpPVTyUij UcNhVe2PdsK6+L8oGXFiVAsTezuum4Gb5/2aR4RDgkUFhqpCaLr00fZsA g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AMAgAKVY5Z/4sNJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1pkgRQHjgqQDYFMiFiILIU1ghIhAQyFGQIahFw/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkCAQMBARsGSwsQAgEIDjEDAgICHwYLFBECBA4FiUtMAxUQqyeCJoc1DYQhAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDKIFiIIFMgWMrC4FlgQyCV4UvMIIxBZgEh2Y8AodRh3OEdIIPhV2KaIwxiWEBHziBCncVSRIBhwd2AQGIL4EPAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,360,1498521600"; d="scan'208,217";a="284697793"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Aug 2017 01:09:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (xch-rtp-019.cisco.com [64.101.220.159]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7C19r5N004424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 12 Aug 2017 01:09:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (64.101.220.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:09:52 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:09:52 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18
Thread-Index: AQHTEvVe0TUBe/21qkKFipdGFMpx/aKALIoA
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 01:09:52 +0000
Message-ID: <518F75E3-A390-4539-B758-1641F2BF74B2@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1reNXt+n0=1gP8RV3AHKRfP2v6URrTriTfxexHTcjxqjOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1reNXt+n0=1gP8RV3AHKRfP2v6URrTriTfxexHTcjxqjOg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.116.133]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_518F75E3A3904539B7581641F2BF74B2ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/6l8evRnaCMVFcc6Y9RJmeFzkxf4>
Subject: Re: [sfc] AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 01:10:08 -0000

Thanks, Alia. Please see inline.

On Aug 11, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.  First, I would like to thank the editors, Carlos, Uri, and Paul, as well as the many contributors for their work on this document.  It has improved substantially.

I do have a few minor comments from my review.  They are below.  I will proceed to ask for an IETF Last Call now and schedule this draft for Aug 31; for that telechat date, I will require a very active shepherd as well as editors.

Please do SUBMIT the latest editor's version of this draft ASAP.  Version numbers are cheap and it is much better for reviewers to see the latest version. This must be the process going forward to avoid the same points being brought up multiple times.

Sounds good.


1) As Acee already noted, receivers of unassigned flags MUST ignore the value.  There are a couple places to fix this.


Agreed. Done.

2) Given the consensus in NVO3 and that VXLAN-GPE will be progressed as an informational document described an alternative that was not selected for standardization, I would prefer a different example in Sec 6.1 Table 1.

This is just an example, non normative, non-binging, and list VXLAN-GPE along with GRE and Ethernet. What would you prefer the document uses?


3) In Sec 7.1, there is a sentence "In some cases they may terminate, and be able to inspect encrypted traffic."  Unless there is a strong technical need to point this out, I would pick a different example.  There is a great deal of current controversy and discussion happening in TLS currently - and this is likely to trigger that discussion unnecessarily.

Ack. Gone.


4) I am happy to see that IEEE (https://regauth.standards.ieee.org/standards-ra-web/pub/view.html#registries) is now showing the EtherType 0x894F as referring to this draft.  Thanks!

Anytime :-)

Thanks!

Carlos.


Regards,
Alia

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com<mailto:carlos@cisco.com>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."