Re: [Softwires] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F3912011B; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aP-C5FBmJsWV; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FCE6120120; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450GKr1vGqz10tN; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:43:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.51]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450GKq6WnnzDq82; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:43:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::954c:232a:f07d:25af%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:43:11 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
CC: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
Thread-Index: AQHVBjvLoGotpmycT0al8kNJQOcXkqZiy2vAgAAIe7A=
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 14:43:11 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA7ACE5@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155726915148.24435.7582686501694078061@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA7A76F@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363055C97D@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363055C97D@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/6i3ObBuM_4OtlkIPPyBcUE12Ls0>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 14:43:25 -0000

Re-,

I agree with you that many tunneling schemes are not present in the IANA registry but is that a problem? I don't think so because registrations are for a reason. 

The natural way from where I sit is that any specification that, for example, defines a specific YANG module for a tunneling scheme not currently in the IANA registry, and needs a specific interface type, will make a request for a code assignment.

FWIW, we are making this work because we had a concrete case (draft-ietf-softwire-yang) which needs to augment the YANG interface module for a specific tunnel scheme. To that aim, we requested IANA to assign a new type and designed this module to access to tunnel types maintained by IANA.

When a new registration is made, the module defined in draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel will be updated automatically by IANA.  

I fail to see why the "best course of action" for this document is to register new types without defining the usage.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Black, David [mailto:David.Black@dell.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 15:46
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; tsv-art@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-
> iftunnel.all@ietf.org; Black, David
> Objet : RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
> 
> > [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered
> tunnels types.
> ...
> > [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this
> draft.
> 
> I understand that, but as stated in the review, I don't think that it's
> the best course of action.  The email below appears to reject all of the
> IETF Last Call comments in the review and in particular presents the scope
> of the draft as fixed and unchangeable; that's unfortunate.  On that
> basis, I will agree to disagree and leave these IETF Last Call concerns to
> the ADs to sort out.
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
> > Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:50 AM
> > To: Black, David; tsv-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-
> iftunnel.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
> >
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : David Black via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> > > Envoyé : mercredi 8 mai 2019 00:46
> > > À : tsv-art@ietf.org
> > > Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-
> > > iftunnel.all@ietf.org
> > > Objet : Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
> > >
> > > Reviewer: David Black
> > > Review result: Not Ready
> > >
> > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> > team's
> > > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were
> > written
> > > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> > > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to
> the
> > > IETF discussion list for information.
> > >
> > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider
> this
> > > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always
> CC
> > > tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
> > >
> > > This draft defines a YANG module for tunnel types based on the MIB-2
> > > tunnel type registry maintained by IANA.
> > >
> > > My fundamental concern with this draft is that the MIB-2 tunnel type
> > > registry is seriously incomplete and out of date, as there are a large
> > > number of tunnel types that aren't included in that registry, e.g.,
> IPsec
> > > tunnel-mode AMT tunneling.  In its current form, that registry does
> not
> > > appear to be a good starting point for specifying YANG management of
> > > tunnels.
> > >
> > > A limited justification that I could envision for defining this YANG
> module
> > > would be to use it for mechanical translations to YANG of existing
> MIBs
> > > that use MIB-2 tunnel types - if that's the justification, then it
> would need
> > > to be clearly stated in an applicability statement within this draft,
> >
> > [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered
> tunnels
> > types. This is mentioned in the introduction:
> >
> >    This document specifies the initial version of the iana-tunnel-type
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    YANG module identifying tunnel interface types.  The module reflects
> >                                                                ^^^^^^^^
> >    IANA's registry maintained at [TUNNELTYPE-IANA-REGISTRY].  The latest
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    revision of this module can be obtained from the IANA web site.
> >
> >  and the
> > > discussion of extension of this YANG module would need to be aligned
> > with
> > > that limited applicability.
> >
> > [Med] This is an IANA-maintained module. That is, when a new tunnel type
> is
> > registered, the module will be automatically updated to include that new
> > type identity:
> >
> >       When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-tunnel-type
> >       must be updated as defined in RFCXXXX.
> >
> > >
> > > The proverbial "right thing to do" would be to update both the MIB-2
> > tunnel
> > > type registry and this draft with all of the currently known tunnel
> types.
> >
> > [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this
> draft. It is
> > up to the documents defining these tunnel types or making use of them to
> > make a request to IANA. For example, this is the approach followed in
> > softwire wg for at least three tunnel types (16, 17, 18).
> >
> > > The references section of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim
> > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-
> shim/)
> > > may help in identifying tunnel protocols that should be included.
> > >
> > > A minor concern involves the use of RFC 8085 as the reference for UDP
> > > tunnels; while that's certainly better than the existing use of RFC
> 4087, due
> > > to the extensive design guidance in RFC 8085, designers of UDP-
> > encapsulated
> > > tunnel protocols ought to be encouraged to register their protocols as
> > > separate
> > > tunnel types (e.g., so the network operator has some idea of what the
> UDP
> > > tunnel is actually being used for).  This draft ought to encourage
> tunnel
> > > protocol designers to register their own tunnel types in preference to
> > reuse
> > > of the UDP tunnel type, including placing text in the IANA tunnel type
> > > registry and this YANG module to encourage that course of action.
> > >
> >
> > [Med] Wouldn't that recommendation be better added to documents such
> > as: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-iftype-reg-02?