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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 20:36 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 A3210120287; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=ijL/AWuI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Xt+zzUde
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 XusuTVx47aYW; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5860120278; Wed, 8 May 2019 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20327; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557347769; x=1558557369; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hY9zX4cUxk/Auz/8nD6gsgz1EC6H1PpYq0E0uudfEKA=; b=ijL/AWuIfjlPcB3hO+wZ6NVOazc/CkshVUKvsdm9P5vLzTtRIx2YzfDJ gLaGUAz7l/lNk2RX9h2Lgs4FHbUw8TEZcP+haKHexmCq9PJ/Y/gqWGS8L KsEsdUzvJyNkRV3GeYkv2ugx8Wuin/BkZ0Au2sUXlegDCASydxdPo8Ad3 k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ago+M1hM7BEtGpLZJ0msl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEuKQ/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETB?= =?us-ascii?q?oZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBjhJfzrcSUSF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BPAQC6PNNc/4YNJK1kHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBVAQBAQsBgQ4vJCwDaVUgBAsohBCDRwOOfYIyJZJXhE2CUgNUCQcBASM?= =?us-ascii?q?KAoQ/AheBcSM3Bg4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEBAxIRChMBATcBDwIBCBE?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQIoAwICAjAUCQgCBAENBSKDAAGBHU0DHQEOolUCgTWIX3GBL4J5AQEFgUZ?= =?us-ascii?q?BgnQYgg8DBoEyAYtNF4FAP4ERJwwTgkw+ghpHAgMBgTZHDQmCVDKCJotMgg6?= =?us-ascii?q?ETYgJjDdfCQKCCYYdiGODTxuCEIZEjQOJFYMPgSGFLI4pAgQCBAUCDgEBBYF?= =?us-ascii?q?lIoFWcBU7KgGCQYIPgmiBB4UUhT9yEYEYjRWCUgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,447,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="552322964"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 May 2019 20:36:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x48Ka8js019808 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 May 2019 20:36:08 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 8 May 2019 15:36:07 -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, 8 May 2019 15:36:07 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-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, 8 May 2019 16:36:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hY9zX4cUxk/Auz/8nD6gsgz1EC6H1PpYq0E0uudfEKA=; b=Xt+zzUde6HbcnpNwhxXKF5yq/ng7VSWtSy0pOb3C/UxO/hUrzxZ74DS9Z/jaIToFqJlnVDLFld7jCwssEBpQarjbnWPvyObvINalz365tWzxcIC4VCloMJvMBARerR4RsJJofIsYVrPD/gHdTxzDY/aaofqAHUl7cZ1QG+oxGGA=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.167.234.208) by BL0PR11MB2946.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.147.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1878.20; Wed, 8 May 2019 20:36:06 +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 15.20.1856.012; Wed, 8 May 2019 20:36:06 +0000
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: 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: AQHVBSapyD0fYCRX2kGyQ5PyDrUz5aZhbfEA
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 20:36:05 +0000
Message-ID: <7361781F-7E3E-4DA7-9893-38BEAEB137D7@cisco.com>
References: <155726915148.24435.7582686501694078061@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155726915148.24435.7582686501694078061@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.18.0.190414
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rajiva@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1007::36c]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 927c0bfc-ec11-457d-2c70-08d6d3f4cb91
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0PR11MB2946;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB2946:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB29465809A2964F463AAEEB26C7320@BL0PR11MB2946.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0031A0FFAF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(199004)(189003)(81156014)(8936002)(81166006)(8676002)(5660300002)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(9326002)(256004)(14444005)(73956011)(68736007)(82746002)(76116006)(76176011)(46003)(486006)(83716004)(2616005)(71200400001)(11346002)(446003)(476003)(71190400001)(58126008)(316002)(54906003)(110136005)(33656002)(99286004)(186003)(102836004)(53546011)(6506007)(6436002)(229853002)(86362001)(6486002)(606006)(2501003)(14454004)(478600001)(6116002)(790700001)(7736002)(4326008)(36756003)(25786009)(6246003)(6306002)(54896002)(6512007)(236005)(2906002)(53936002)(518174003)(24704002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR11MB2946; H:BL0PR11MB3268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: Mg1+/Z4jvpslX2uWtcRQay6r/q3gCr1okW7OLIwOQQUQ39zcKZ+h0G0s26VFC2RlhBZ0yXBMoyAtDDptlsePkH+AF02+M2D4ExYydRC+Jhn74G0peMDpJ632BqbdJxP4OZk/mm7ZNck07w9VPIx2Pjf3YKkkOIstO4+rKg7+1mS0UacU3Sw7ecmArzh+s/RG1wdZRNfEXD5EYTC0c9OkmOm8k8iEoKX6gLQhz+Z3d++Q+e+RChCUJTkJUg7SRtEr5+Ct3wIxv4Elp7h4MlADxyiu38TKMCaGtWCvdgmYBMFi2x6yuBqMdD8WTu6HqEMjdq/Qtf+6veKUiJL1UwuZvyVp7HZjKyy0veNgxt0ZWZ3xC4nCYHc+7+rvQVpjJAV+XH2gW+V8sNjjOLap70X8J+b/G281i5NFd8w/x+K+EyA=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7361781F7E3E4DA7989338BEAEB137D7ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 927c0bfc-ec11-457d-2c70-08d6d3f4cb91
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 May 2019 20:36:05.8434 (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-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB2946
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.16, xch-rcd-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/cp0tY6uCmxL71dx6D_bIhnQRCa8>
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 20:36:18 -0000

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>;
Reply-To: David Black <david.black@dell.com>;
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:46 PM
To: "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: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>;
Resent-To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"; <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;, <ianfarrer@gmx.com>;, Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>;, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>;, Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>;, <suresh@kaloom.com>;, Yong Cui <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.