IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 02 February 2018 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 1C9FD124BAC for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:15:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 f99fwExtfat8 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FBBF1200C5 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:15:02 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=PYCDEXssbiu7ShkTTVPzwrPI1lhbNkFWFBAziaMmFAEk2EK3mYVTZixMdTGVbKQniFZPupW+r6sNub7cwreidCny1ANVMc0G9qs7yqgfAw5pU8CD2nsJuY3h/6/LFLLECDIXRyrrN4c70wyWL5OTBBlmjCnCKg5ar+6xpivVcjc=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 11622 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2018 21:15:00 +0100
Received: from i577bce83.versanet.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (87.123.206.131) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 2 Feb 2018 21:15:00 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <002e01d39c53$40045240$c00cf6c0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 21:14:58 +0100
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, sfc@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <361D51F5-EEEE-4735-A371-92252AE55FEA@kuehlewind.net>
References: <151759289599.1342.15363054759260139160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1bce8bb3c4ac4dcd901f0da1c2950fcc@BLUPR05MB370.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <002e01d39c53$40045240$c00cf6c0$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20180202201500.11613.99726@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/n8fDyrj43mHMKqFXAGsZL-16NIE>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:15:05 -0000

Hi Adrian,


> Am 02.02.2018 um 19:25 schrieb Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>:
> 
> Hi Mirja, 
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> From the Discuss...
> 
>> This spec enables an SC node to create new packets and therefore must provide
>> congestion control consideration to avoid network overload from these packets,
>> e.g. in the simplest case requiring a maximal sending rate/minimal time
>> interval between to packets.
> 
> You say "consideration" and not "mechanism" and that sounds about right.
> 
> I think we should require rate-limiting on transmission and also on
> receipt/forwarding.
> 
> At 30,000 foot we should look at this like ICMP, so rate limits are reasonable.
> 
> I am slightly worried that an application here might be OAM (although that is
> still open for debate in the WG) and so rate limiting might be
> counter-productive.
> 
> Consider, if you will, BFD. There *is* rate limiting in BFD, but the rate may be
> pretty fast.
> 
> Anyway, if we construct some text that advises implementations:
> - why to rate limit
> - how to rate limit
> - what rates may be appropriate
> would you review it for us?

Yes to all of this.

> 
> For the Comment...
> 
>> I think this document should update RFC8300 as it does not only register an
> new
>> protocol but also changes some of the process for this specific case.
> 
> I am not going to get between the IESG and its  regular discussion of what an
> "update" is ;-)
> Once upon a time "B updates A" meant you cannot implement A without also
> implementing B.
> It was not my intention that anything in this spec changed the behaviour of an
> implementation of 8300. If we have inadvertently made that happen, could you
> point it out so we can fix it.

Yes, this was more a comment for the AD. However, it is still not true that „updates“ means „must implement“, maybe „must read“ or „must have a look at to figure out if it should be implemented as well“. But I also have to say it's on my todo for a while to write draft for clarification here, so I take all the blame. However, this is also just a comment, so one opinion that does not need to be addressed.

Mirja



> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email