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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 07 June 2019 12:08 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 C70F212003F; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 tqid6_ThE_hp; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29732120086; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 05:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45L1WQ4GWtz30rC; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:08:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.101]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45L1WQ2cGHz1xns; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:08:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM6F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c489:b768:686a:545b%23]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:08:01 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, "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@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: AQHVHSW6yBTo/YP1LUKSgwLuZh+4RaaQFKYQ
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAA34DF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <01f601d51d25$22138e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01f601d51d25$22138e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
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/jgWTRz8fNrM66uZQvwEeLdCK7S0>
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: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:08:07 -0000

Hi Tom, 

> [the current proposed Note makes no mention of updating the MIB module,
> rather it takes it for granted that it will happen which the current
> IANA pages do not spell out]

The draft does not include any instruction about the MIB module because this is already implemented by IANA (4087). If you check the latest version if the if MIB at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, you can see the following change: 

       REVISION     "201902140000Z"  -- February 14, 2019
       DESCRIPTION  "Registration of new tunnelType 18." 

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tom petch [mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 7 juin 2019 13:40
> À : Eric Vyncke (evyncke); David Black; tsv-art@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf; draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
> 
> Eric
> 
> To be more concrete about the changes I propose to this I-D, after some
> off-list discussion.
> 
> This I-D should ask IANA to insert the name
> tunnelType Definitions
> at the URL
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbe
> rs-6:
> to make it clear that this is the registry for tunnels not just a MIB
> module or an appendage to the interface registry
> [this also brings the IANA pages more in line with the instructions to
> IANA in
> this I-D]
> 
> The Note proposed in this I-D should be expanded to say something along
> the lines of
> 
> "Updates to this registry will propagate updates to both the IANA
> maintained ianaiftype-mib MIB module, as defined in RFC4087, and to the
> tunnelType YANG module, as defined in RFCXXXX"
> 
> [the current proposed Note makes no mention of updating the MIB module,
> rather it takes it for granted that it will happen which the current
> IANA pages do not spell out]
> 
> Alongside
> 'For a functional mib language definition ...'
> IANA should be asked to add a reference
> 'For a functional YANG language definition ...'
> 
> This I-D makes no mention of the need for an integer associated with a
> new tunnel type which the YANG does not require but which the SMI does.
> I would prefer that this be mentioned in this I-D for completeness.
> 
> Some or all of which I see as an update to RFC4087
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>;
> To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>;; "David Black"
> <david.black@dell.com>;; <tsv-art@ietf.org>;
> Cc: <softwires@ietf.org>;; "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org>;;
> <draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@ietf.org>;
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 5:36 PM
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>;
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:07 AM
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Accepting that not all tunnel types will be in the IANA YANG module, I
> > think that there is another unresolved issue that I see as
> problematic.
> >
> > The I-D talks of the IANA tunnelType Table, as in s.4.2, but I see no
> > such thing on the IANA website. There is a MIB module but that is not
> a
> > registry.  The referenced URL is
> > Internet-standard MIB -
> > mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType
> > a MIB module, not a registry.
> >
> > The treatment of interfaces and tunnels by IANA are different.
> > Interfaces have a registry and when that is updated, that drives
> updates
> > to a YANG module and a MIB module
> >
> > Tunnels do not have a registry, just a MIB module.  Probably this I-D
> > should create a registry of tunnels so that MIB and YANG tunnel
> modules
> > can be updated in the same way as Interface ones are.  As it is, I see
> > nowhere for the new text relating to a YANG module to go in the
> existing
> > IANA pages.
> >
> > I realise that the Expert Reviewer thinks he can manage but I want the
> > IANA pages to make sense more widely than that.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > -éric
> > >
> > > On 08/05/2019, 00:45, "David Black via Datatracker"
> > <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 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >