Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt
"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 11 August 2017 03:23 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 E5B6A12778D; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 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, 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 5K1gz0xnibpq; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DE89129AD3; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=40836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1502421816; x=1503631416; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=nWJdu1CungywGYfbaeK145czkzyc0Y66Rvgk1EclnuQ=; b=D5tXQRGunhirivwde29hp2XIh7gfpgpLEDNxFM6cVN4E4S4BBKRXSlMt bEKy6zmMLktJXfXP8EpQ/rDlZcWRnDuyQjCbIH1gsoJNHmTLVfUuHN+0h /fNtWCj47VZIJo1htOO/9j/mMx7FA2+brdnf0izAAPbZBbxRDQ+5gJi7B w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DmAABMIo1Z/5ldJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1pkgRQHjgmQC4FuiDaNXw6CBCyFGwIahF8/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkGI0QSEAIBCA4EAiQHAwICAh8RFAMOAgQOBYlLTAMVEKtOgiaHNA2EIQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2DKIICgUyBYgErgnyCV4IELwmCczCCMQWJfZVnPAKHUYdzhHSCD1mBEoNyimaMLolhAQ8QOIEKdxVJEgGFAR+BZ3YBiGOBDwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,356,1498521600"; d="scan'208,217";a="270892794"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Aug 2017 03:23:35 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7B3NZrX026615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:23:35 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 23:23:34 -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; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 23:23:34 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Routing ADs <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sfc-nsh@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-nsh@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTEkkNohtk+3sC7U296lwhJgbb+aJ+wOeA
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:23:34 +0000
Message-ID: <3DB664F5-C6DE-4B57-A666-5573C8625AAA@cisco.com>
References: <D5B27C52.C036D%acee@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rdee8sz5Afk_jY9YJx7pDAvkTxkzQjSYbv=HGGOzwscTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdee8sz5Afk_jY9YJx7pDAvkTxkzQjSYbv=HGGOzwscTg@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_3DB664F5C6DE4B57A6665573C8625AAAciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/n_ygVAvR65r_vhV1dGT37u48Q20>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt
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, 11 Aug 2017 03:23:41 -0000
Alia, On Aug 10, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote: Acee, Thank you for your review. I look forward to the editors & WG discussing how to improve the draft. Seems all these minor review items are fairly localized, clear, and non-contentious. We have provided responses and diffs on the list, and a new revision is ready to be submitted when Joel / you wants us to pull the trigger (addressing Ops and RTG Dirs). Thanks, — Carlos. Regards, Alia On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote: Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt Reviewer: Acee Lindem Review Date: August 10, 2017 IETF LC End Date: Not started yet. Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. It needs to be consumed along with the Service Function Chaining architecture. Comments: The document is an important piece of the Service Function Chaining work. I think the readability could be greatly improved with the editorial changes I have suggested. For example, using articles, e.g. “the”, when referring to the NSH. Major Issues: N/A Minor Issues: Section 1: Run-on sentense that makes up the entire third paragraph is too hard to parse. Please split it up and avoid cascading so many dependent clauses. Section 2.2: The discussion of meta-data support for MD types 0x1 or 0x3 is out of context. Section 2.4: The MUST's are contradictory. First it says the context header MUST be 16 bytes than it says it MUST be 0 bytes if it contains no meta-data. This is hardly "fixed". Section 2.5.1: Mandating that the unassigned bit MUST NOT be set will without saying it MUST be ignored on receipt is not be backward compatible. Section 11.2.1: List the bits that are assigned. Section 11.2.6: MD types 1 and 2 are assigned by the document yet this section states that no values are assigned. Nits: ACEE-M-G2HR:Desktop acee$ diff -c draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt.orig draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt *** draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt.orig 2017-08-04 07:27:08.000000000 -0400 --- draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.txt 2017-08-10 20:50:45.000000000 -0400 *************** *** 18,24 **** This document describes a Network Service Header (NSH) inserted onto packets or frames to realize service function paths. NSH also ! provides a mechanism for metadata exchange along the instantiated service paths. NSH is the SFC encapsulation required to support the Service Function Chaining (SFC) architecture (defined in RFC7665). --- 18,24 ---- This document describes a Network Service Header (NSH) inserted onto packets or frames to realize service function paths. NSH also ! provides a mechanism for metadata exchange along instantiated service paths. NSH is the SFC encapsulation required to support the Service Function Chaining (SFC) architecture (defined in RFC7665). *************** *** 181,187 **** Metadata: Defined in [RFC7665]. ! Network Locator: dataplane address, typically IPv4 or IPv6, used to send and receive network traffic. Network Node/Element: Device that forwards packets or frames based --- 181,187 ---- Metadata: Defined in [RFC7665]. ! Network Locator: Dataplane address, typically IPv4 or IPv6, used to send and receive network traffic. Network Node/Element: Device that forwards packets or frames based *************** *** 191,204 **** (the underlay). Packets are encapsulated or tunneled to create the overlay network topology. ! NSH-aware SFC-encapsulation-aware, or SFC-aware [RFC7665]. ! Service Classifier: Logical entity providing classification function. Since they are logical, classifiers may be co-resident with SFC elements such as SFs or SFFs. Service classifiers perform classification and impose NSH. The initial classifier imposes the initial NSH and sends the NSH packet to the first SFF ! in the path. Non-initial (i.e. subsequent) classification can occur as needed and can alter, or create a new service path. Service Function (SF): Defined in [RFC7665]. --- 191,204 ---- (the underlay). Packets are encapsulated or tunneled to create the overlay network topology. ! NSH-aware: SFC-encapsulation-aware, or SFC-aware [RFC7665]. ! Service Classifier: Logical entity providing the classification function. Since they are logical, classifiers may be co-resident with SFC elements such as SFs or SFFs. Service classifiers perform classification and impose NSH. The initial classifier imposes the initial NSH and sends the NSH packet to the first SFF ! in the path. Non-initial (i.e., subsequent) classification can occur as needed and can alter, or create a new service path. Service Function (SF): Defined in [RFC7665]. *************** *** 269,277 **** 2. Network Service Header ! NSH contains service path information and optionally metadata that are added to a packet or frame and used to create a service plane. ! An outer transport header is imposed, on NSH and the original packet/ frame, for network forwarding. --- 269,277 ---- 2. Network Service Header ! The NSH contains service path information and optionally metadata that are added to a packet or frame and used to create a service plane. ! An outer transport header is imposed on the NSH and the original packet/ frame, for network forwarding. *************** *** 282,293 **** Internet-Draft Network Service Header (NSH) July 2017 ! A Service Classifier adds NSH. NSH is removed by the last SFF in the service chain or by an SF that consumes the packet. 2.1. Network Service Header Format ! NSH is composed of a 4-byte Base Header, a 4-byte Service Path Header and optional Context Headers, as shown in Figure 1 below. 0 1 2 3 --- 282,293 ---- Internet-Draft Network Service Header (NSH) July 2017 ! A Service Classifier adds the NSH. The NSH is removed by the last SFF in the service chain or by an SF that consumes the packet. 2.1. Network Service Header Format ! The NSH is composed of a 4-byte Base Header, a 4-byte Service Path Header and optional Context Headers, as shown in Figure 1 below. 0 1 2 3 *************** *** 304,316 **** Figure 1: Network Service Header ! Base header: provides information about the service header and the payload protocol. ! Service Path Header: provides path identification and location within a service path. ! Context header: carries metadata (i.e., context data) along a service path. 2.2. NSH Base Header --- 304,316 ---- Figure 1: Network Service Header ! Base header: Provides information about the service header and the payload protocol. ! Service Path Header: Provides path identification and location within a service path. ! Context header: Carries metadata (i.e., context data) along a service path. 2.2. NSH Base Header *************** *** 368,374 **** for service plane loop detection. The initial TTL value SHOULD be configurable via the control plane; the configured initial value can be specific to one or more SFPs. If no initial value is explicitly ! provided, the default initial TTL value 63 MUST be used. Each SFF involved in forwarding an NSH packet MUST decrement the TTL value by 1 prior to NSH forwarding lookup. Decrementing by 1 from an incoming value of 0 shall result in a TTL value of 63. The packet MUST NOT be --- 368,374 ---- for service plane loop detection. The initial TTL value SHOULD be configurable via the control plane; the configured initial value can be specific to one or more SFPs. If no initial value is explicitly ! provided, the default initial TTL value of 63 MUST be used. Each SFF involved in forwarding an NSH packet MUST decrement the TTL value by 1 prior to NSH forwarding lookup. Decrementing by 1 from an incoming value of 0 shall result in a TTL value of 63. The packet MUST NOT be *************** *** 380,389 **** elements. Elements which do not understand the meaning of any of these bits MUST NOT modify their actions based on those unknown bits — 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."
- [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review for dr… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review fo… Alia Atlas
- Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review fo… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [sfc] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Last Call… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review fo… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [sfc] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Last Call… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review fo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [sfc] Routing Directorate Last Call Review fo… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)