Re: [sfc] draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-04 ready for WGLC? (was RE: PoT review/comments)

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Greg,

I cannot speak to your understanding, or where it is rooted on.

And I believe you meant “broader” instead of “border”.

Reading the very first sentence of the document (and the full Abstract) explains what you are asking below, in better words than what I can answer here.

And those are, however, questions about WG adoption, which happened about two years ago.

That said, PoT over NSH is a cardinal application and early use case, and as such, was adopted by the SFC WG (for generic PoT and IOAM over NSH).

Best,

Carlos.

2020/03/24 午後5:00、Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Hi Carlos,
thank you for the clarification. My understanding, that the reason the POT document being worked by the SFC WG is that it defines it for the NSH encapsulation. Or is the applicability of the draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit border than SFC using NSH?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:55 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Greg,

The very first sentence of the PoT document reads:

   Several technologies such as Traffic Engineering (TE), Service
   Function Chaining (SFC), and policy based routing are used to steer
   traffic through a specific, user-defined path.  This document defines

Explaining how this document is applicable to various traffic-steering technologies.

Section 3 then explains:

   The POT information is encapsulated in packets as an IOAM Proof Of
   Transit Option.  The details and format of the encapsulation and the
   POT Option format are specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

Which shows how to carry PoT in IOAM, with an appropriate pointer.

Lastly, draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-03 defines IOAM over an NSH encapsulation.

This arrangements maximizes specification modularity and portability/reusability.

Best,

Carlos.

2020/03/24 午後4:48、Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Hi Joel,
thank you for the most expedient response. As I understand it, iOAM Data draft describes the format of the informational element that carries POT-related information but it does not define how the element to be carried in case of NSH encapsulation. And that is what I was asking, apologies for not being clear in my first note.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:42 PM Joel M.. Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Regarding the information carriage, the PoT document points to the IOAM
document.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08#section-4.5
gives the format (and ways to have other formats if needed.)

Yours,
Joel

On 3/24/2020 4:26 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> thank you for reminding us about this important work, indeed we should
> complete it. I've reviewed the draft and have several questions. Please
> kindly consider:
>
>   * I couldn't find information where, relative to NSH, RND and CML are
>     transported
>   * for YANG data models using "reference" is strongly encouraged as it
>     provides a pointer to the specification. Since the POT data model is
>     in the same document as the POT specification, listing the
>     appropriate section should suffice
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:45 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> <fbrockne=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>     Dear SFC WG,____
>
>     __ __
>
>     It’s been a while since we posted draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-04
>     which addressed all known comments – see below.
>     I’ve not seen any more recent comments or questions come up – and
>     we’ve been through quite a few discussions and reviews of this
>     document already.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thus the question: Are we ready for WG LC?____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thanks, Frank____
>
>     __ __
>
>     *From:* Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
>     *Sent:* Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 08:21
>     *To:* Alejandro Aguado FI <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Diego R. Lopez
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:cpignata@cisco..com>>>; ALEJANDRO AGUADO
>     MARTIN <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Shwetha
>     Bhandari (shwethab) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* RE: PoT review/comments____
>
>     __ __
>
>     We’ve just posted revision -04 of draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit
>     which now includes support for OPOT configuration in the yang model;____
>
>     see section 5.2.3 in
>     https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-04.txt. ____
>
>     The main addition is a grouping opot-profile, which adds upstream
>     and downstream masks that OPOT requires.____
>
>     Thanks to Alejandro for suggesting these updates.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     This fixes the last “known issue” in
>     draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit. It would be great if you could give
>     the document another careful read through.
>     Are we ready for WGLC?____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thanks, Frank____
>
>     __ __
>
>     __ __
>
>     *From:* Alejandro Aguado FI <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Sent:* Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 15:40
>     *To:* Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:cpignata@cisco..com>>>; Frank Brockners
>     (fbrockne) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>     ALEJANDRO AGUADO MARTIN <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Shwetha
>     Bhandari (shwethab) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* Re: PoT review/comments____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Hi Shwetha,____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Yes, I think it is a good idea. From your points, the second one is
>     a bit confusing to me... But I do not fully remember how the model
>     was structured, so I need to revise the document.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Give me a day or two to explore again the model, and either we
>     exchange few emails with proposals for the extension, or we can
>     organise a quick call during next week to close a final proposal to
>     share with other contributors.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thanks!____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Best,____
>
>     Alejandro____
>
>     __ __
>
>     __ __
>
>     El 12 de septiembre de 2019 a las 8:52:44, Shwetha Bhandari
>     (shwethab) ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>)
>     escribió:____
>
>     Hi Alejandro, Diego,____
>
>     ____
>
>     Since you added extension to do OPoT, should we extend the model in
>     draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit to enable OPoT and any parameters
>     required for it  shared masks per link. If yes my proposal will be
>     to:____
>
>      1. Augment existing pot-profile with fields to Enable OPoT and a
>         cipher scheme if needed.____
>      2. Separate container in the model to define a map of (Node
>         link/interface, mask) to distribute pair wise masks. For e.g.
>         Node link/interface identifier can be UUID as defined in rfc8348
>         Or____
>      3. Masks can be part of pot-profile.____
>
>     ____
>
>     What do you think about revising the model with this?____
>
>     ____
>
>     Thanks,____
>
>     Shwetha____
>
>     ____
>
>     *From: *"Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:34 PM
>     *To: *ALEJANDRO AGUADO MARTIN
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>, "Diego R.
>     Lopez" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>, Carlos Pignataro
>     <cpignata@cisco..com <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>, Shwetha bhandari
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:shwethab@cisco..com>>>, Tal Mizrahi
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Cc: *"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>"
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Subject: *RE: PoT review/comments____
>
>     ____
>
>     Hi Alejandro,____
>
>     ____
>
>     Thanks again for the review. Your comments have been integrated into
>     draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-03 which just got posted.____
>
>     ____
>
>     Cheers, Frank____
>
>     ____
>
>     *From:*Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
>     *Sent:* Montag, 27. Mai 2019 18:18
>     *To:* ALEJANDRO AGUADO MARTIN
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Diego R. Lopez
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:cpignata@cisco..com>>>; Shwetha Bhandari
>     (shwethab) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Tal
>     Mizrahi <[e-mail]<mailto:tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail..com> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* RE: PoT review/comments____
>
>     ____
>
>     Hi Alejandro,____
>
>     ____
>
>     Many thanks for the comments – and sorry for the delay –
>     unfortunately your email somehow got dropped from my todo list.
>     Please see inline…____
>
>     ____
>
>     (cc’ing the list as well).____
>
>     ____
>
>     *From:*ALEJANDRO AGUADO MARTIN
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Sent:* Montag, 15. April 2019 17:27
>     *To:* Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:cpignata@cisco..com>>>; Frank Brockners
>     (fbrockne) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Shwetha
>     Bhandari (shwethab) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* PoT review/comments____
>
>     ____
>
>     Dear all,____
>
>     ____
>
>     I gave a quick review to the PoT document. Some comments:____
>
>     ____
>
>     - I read “The non-constant coefficients are used to generate the
>     Lagrange Polynomial Constants (LPC).” As far as I understood, the
>     points assigned to each node (Xi) are the ones used for generating
>     the LPCi, aren’t they?____
>
>     */…FB: Good catch. The LPCs are of course computed using (x_i,
>     y_i)./*____
>
>     - If we go for including the YANG in the current document (which I
>     agree), parameters should be described before the yang definition,
>     and maybe it would be helpful to have the yang tree (see the current
>     version attached).____
>
>     */…FB: Thanks. IMHO it makes sense to keep the YANG model in the
>     current doc, given that the model and the description go hand in
>     hand. We can of course also include the yang tree to make reading
>     easier. This is consistent with other documents which specify YANG
>     models./*____
>
>     - I include in the attached file few questions about naming of some
>     parameters.____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */…FB:
>     - naming F_i(x_i, y_i) – I agree that a better name could be used.
>     The only potential concern would be that the open source
>     implementation in OpenDaylight uses this naming – changing it might
>     lead to confusion.. We can start with adding a comment to make
>     things clearer./*____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */- secret key – this is the constant part of the first polynomial
>     which serves as the secret – and which is re-retrieved. Again, we
>     can update the description to make things clearer./*____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */- size of the random number: This is unrelated to OPOT. The random
>     number is to uniquely identify a packet. There is a trade-off
>     between the size of the random number and how often you need to
>     re-key your system. At high speeds, the random number – which
>     identifies a particular packet – is used up quite quickly if it is
>     only 32-bit wide. See section 4
>     /*https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-02#section-4____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */- number of profiles: For a deployment which is expected to renew
>     keys every now and then (e.g. you run with 32-bit random numbers at
>     reasonably high speeds), you need at least 2 profiles – an active
>     one and one that you can activate once you run out of random numbers
>     (which is what the encapsulating node would decide).. /*____
>
>     - I have checked some of the existing YANG files within the IETF to
>     see in which it would be helpful to include. From the (not so) old
>     OpenFlow, I assume that one match is necessary (for identify the
>     iOAM/PoT header) whilst the source node can use any existing match
>     field to identify packets where to apply the PoT scheme. In terms of
>     actions, I would say that two may be required: for any node, an
>     update-pot is necessary, while the verifier would need a verify-pot
>     type of action, that would ideally either remove the header or drop
>     the packet if fails (I do not know if you are thinking in more
>     complex scenarios).____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */…FB: From an OF perspective, that sounds feasible.. That said, we
>     probably want to avoid making the spec specific to a technology like
>     OF, hence would suggest that we don’t specify such a behavior as
>     part of this document./*____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     - For this last point, I have seen the definitions within
>     draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-08, where matched could map (if I am
>     not wrong) to classifiers/filters, and actions to actions. I send
>     you the models in a zip file. In this sense the model to be defined
>     in the PoT shall be an augment of the models defined in that
>     document. I have not done a very deep revision on the model, but I
>     think it could fit there. If you have check this or other models,
>     let me know so I could also help.____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */…FB: Per my note above: In order to keep POT generic and not link
>     it to a particular classification mechanism, I’d prefer to keep the
>     classification question as out of scope for the current document.
>     That way it can also apply to technologies which come with their own
>     way to classify – and which might fully decouple the tunneling
>     aspects from the classification aspects. /*____
>
>     ____
>
>     Thanks a lot and sorry for such long email.____
>
>     ____
>
>     */..FB: Thanks again for all your comments. We’ll get them included
>     in the next revision. /*____
>
>     *//*____
>
>     */Cheers, Frank/*____
>
>     ____
>
>     ____
>
>     ____
>
>     Best,____
>
>     Alejandro____
>
>     ____
>
>     ____
>
>     ____
>
>     ____
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su
>     destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial
>     y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es
>     usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura,
>     utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar
>     prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este
>     mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
>     por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
>
>     The information contained in this transmission is privileged and
>     confidential information intended only for the use of the individual
>     or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
>     intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>     distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
>     prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
>     read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have
>     received this communication in error and then delete it.
>
>     Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu
>     destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e
>     é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é
>     vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a
>     leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode
>     estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta
>     mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por
>     esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição____
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     sfc mailing list
>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc