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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 8FEE7120096; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, 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 header.b=Szdojjtl; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=TNkwN7f/
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 EVQyDM0K6jMN; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:06:00 -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 82C0712006E; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21543; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559156759; x=1560366359; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=o7LK0TCj9sQkZdHwEAmiQL53mPAdx0tJkFAu4pS+Eu0=; b=Szdojjtl9haKoTV3zesr8wBbWpCgyMxj9TfJ1rYo1s8aSpqFh6+9ydYi xRChLesIF9YMnAW9dReIv7g5KWGJ0lxjzIl64iSP77CddyceqP8Qw9n5q KXQv8orESNNuGCSsCJ1Ie0wSTMrzhkkqUXryRdRY5tEwft5Y8UyUVmvBh k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ak2BQ8BDgOgOHxna0ux1BUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9p?= =?us-ascii?q?ssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qg83kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHw?= =?us-ascii?q?QAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuNvfobjIzNM9DT1RiuXq8NBsdFQ=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CiAACK1+5c/5BdJa1lHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBUwUBAQsBgQ4vJCwDaVUgBAsohBODRwOOcIIyJZJchFGBLhSBEANUCQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQwBASMKAgEBhEACF4JeIzYHDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtHAyFSgEBAQEDEhEdAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?3AQ8CAQgRAwECKAMCAgIwFAkIAgQBDQUigwABgR1NAx0BDp5OAoE4iF9xgS+?= =?us-ascii?q?CeQEBBYFGQYJ/GIIPAwaBNAGLUxeBQD+BEScME4FOfj6CYQIDAYElET4JDQk?= =?us-ascii?q?CglIygiaLd4IYhGOIKo1ICQKCDYY4hkqCPINhG4IfhmmNS4lYgx2BKIVejns?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAIEBQIOAQEFgVYELYFYcBU7KgGCQYIPgmmBB4UUhT9yEYEYilGCUgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,527,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="554738486"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 May 2019 19:05:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4TJ5wdY007575 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 May 2019 19:05:58 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:05:57 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:05:56 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:05:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=o7LK0TCj9sQkZdHwEAmiQL53mPAdx0tJkFAu4pS+Eu0=; b=TNkwN7f/LtSrgJzLxR5Asv6beK4QyMFdob5iYoERhmnNkD4hJOrAMuh3UlU3rr0x0ec4LRodkRCbKJoZZYrInbHkiV3Kc9FZHiBH48mBwKoikl+k+u2ExWj7AzvfoW3T0RiMFQ8rhAn70ZG9uxjk3m1nbuNFPmQgvH3Pw6r/b+k=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.167.234.208) by BL0PR11MB3425.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.206.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.20; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:05:55 +0000
Received: from BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b48d:35ea:3d23:3f7f]) by BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b48d:35ea:3d23:3f7f%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:05:55 +0000
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, David Black <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: AQHVBSapyD0fYCRX2kGyQ5PyDrUz5aaAPbqAgAIX/gA=
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:05:55 +0000
Message-ID: <33D4F21B-7838-4181-B96E-7C12105EA675@cisco.com>
References: <155726915148.24435.7582686501694078061@ietfa.amsl.com> <B4EB793C-CC54-462B-BD35-891BD0150635@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B4EB793C-CC54-462B-BD35-891BD0150635@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.19.0.190512
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rajiva@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:2240:1340:1407:a10:32fa:113c]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8e755a50-557f-406a-adf5-08d6e468ad4b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0PR11MB3425;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3425:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB3425F9DA0439CEE4809367A9C71F0@BL0PR11MB3425.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0052308DC6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(53936002)(54906003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(68736007)(7736002)(83716004)(6246003)(316002)(478600001)(236005)(58126008)(36756003)(6512007)(54896002)(110136005)(6306002)(6506007)(53546011)(2501003)(6486002)(102836004)(6436002)(86362001)(486006)(606006)(476003)(46003)(2616005)(11346002)(446003)(186003)(5660300002)(66946007)(4326008)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(76116006)(73956011)(25786009)(229853002)(14454004)(6116002)(99286004)(256004)(76176011)(81156014)(8676002)(33656002)(81166006)(2906002)(8936002)(82746002)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR11MB3425; H:BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 3nBPI80AYeaL1LXcnxsdUE+jhm5YOKCdl06yvABKTUU6d5sMtF6mi2emWoDn5BIQ1rVLXS31QLuXo0ebDOF6ljAh4xog6amRBpWWvYIpJ3vlRopANp7hmAkFuxX0dFbpmStcGolwx8KbAQdt5cVKWfm5BtuzZ997vLLwojPHFe4BAc6DmJhxiIT7bJbSUewocv8czwxgRcml/YK+m5ThVrNnWZHLhLe8f9DKJn7LOgkiwfvhoNw/OeQJn9UM457yFOoCFR88a9tlQobN9qsi4Ah1JJNmoiDqdxn0cIl9DsnGvp8rogCc/O0dofyfZxGSBjaNTSzG+0LnCT9OGTtE9a375xjugZn1/RkZeLKf5J4XoBGDRqUhRAJwGA/pu/niNKa+AgAX/3xq2ST6ymYBE6f6I5zRREqkra8jcwLt2Ts=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_33D4F21B78384181B96E7C12105EA675ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8e755a50-557f-406a-adf5-08d6e468ad4b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 May 2019 19:05:55.3474 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rajiva@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB3425
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.24, xch-rcd-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/7iiKs_8eFlbtZVspMmVXSHZ4w4E>
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: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:06:04 -0000

Thanks, Eric & Dave.

--
Cheers,
Rajiv

From: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>;
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 3:07 AM
To: David Black <David.Black@dell.com>;, "tsv-art@ietf.org"; <tsv-art@ietf.org>;
Cc: Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org>;, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04

Dear all,

Thank you again for the review.

After discussion with Dave Thaler (who maintains the tunnel type IANA registry), it appears that the draft can go forward without waiting for a complete IANA registry for tunnel types.

Best regards

-éric

On 08/05/2019, 00:45, "David Black via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:

    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<mailto: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, and the
    discussion of extension of this YANG module would need to be aligned with
    that limited applicability.

    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.
    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.