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

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.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 5313C12010F; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=rswz29rO; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=Hn7inCgz
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 ZO7rtNsqdbpH; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.133.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10937120044; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170391.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x48Ke8XY019795; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=px6lBUx5xrr1agrdGD5uVepQ7alUQWSNNDp16hljWNA=; b=rswz29rO6l9ujyxTqUbk6KPfRGaNBLrk8QH4XNgfk+5r4FhUSxSXJx6u0cDhN4iJdwG9 fdluecEoPb7u27sJfV+U+TGawDPiE9cESsSB+GGv3XvumMgQG2lt2xBBr9sUeRWLFuXI /a4oJ9EmIs3kOnV0heem5gihM0BYbBlLhVRim5Xmc48Z+WKFiAJoloixWe6S5KVbzYxD ej8VNxMYIfFu0NzUkkUvlOuai4eB++jf7MkoqUkrAhKjSBXpog8ywFzI7LeLT6dMd6X5 BfnnnCp/6Bd+0+GXRcW780CRf7vpU41DFgyRcomk9vb+FaXV1SkC1w974vhZb8kXkg6j 6A==
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.157.37]) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sbwd6tdg8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 May 2019 16:41:22 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0134318.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x48KcKNq073464; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:21 -0400
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2s95cdkdbg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 08 May 2019 16:41:21 -0400
Received: from maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.158]) by mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x48KfJsr002262 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:20 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com x48KfJsr002262
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1557348080; bh=8XbavXNg91x6pGX++AyfiFPROCk=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Hn7inCgzIvmI6JlVcfRS1/pfGGYRqs4gRPi/50ZUrO+9S7i2A/3GxoUIPlIZm84hj 3dx2XscMHCF7IYJVM2+wBpQWmYZ/PPDPSJNnugSr8ajd3TLhargn7FGU7g/KUxs6vb 7umVoYw4Zwtnm83Hsw5jRTfC6l3FZVk1HZ7sh1ME=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com x48KfJsr002262
Received: from mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.19]) by maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:04 -0400
Received: from MXHUB311.corp.emc.com (MXHUB311.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.89]) by mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x48Kf6vO008215 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:07 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB311.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:41:06 -0400
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.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: AQHVBd2t9byonpbj8ESnzPy7+J1lUKZhsL7w
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 20:41:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363055B7B8@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <155726915148.24435.7582686501694078061@ietfa.amsl.com> <7361781F-7E3E-4DA7-9893-38BEAEB137D7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7361781F-7E3E-4DA7-9893-38BEAEB137D7@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.21.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363055B7B8MX307CL04corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-08_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905080125
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905080125
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/JajLByxzNLjDQwdUHCZCnKl6q-0>
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, 08 May 2019 20:41:27 -0000

As noted in the review:

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.

Thanks, --David

From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:36 PM
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,

Thanks for your review and comments. QQ -

>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.

Do you happen to have the list of missing MIB-2 tunnel types?

--
Cheers,
Rajiv

From: David Black via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>>
Reply-To: David Black <david.black@dell.com<mailto:david.black@dell.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:46 PM
To: "tsv-art@ietf.org<mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>" <tsv-art@ietf.org<mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>>
Cc: Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org<mailto:softwires@ietf.org>>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org>>
Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>, <ianfarrer@gmx.com<mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com>>, Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com<mailto:rajiva@cisco.com>>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn<mailto:cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>>, Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com<mailto:evyncke@cisco.com>>, <suresh@kaloom.com<mailto:suresh@kaloom.com>>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn<mailto:cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:45 PM

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.