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

[<[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : vendredi 7 juin 2019 13:40
> À : Eric Vyncke (evyncke); David Black; [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; ietf; [e-mail]
> 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." <[e-mail]>
> To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>; "David Black"
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "ietf" <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 5:36 PM
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>
> > 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"
> > <[e-mail]> 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
> > >     [e-mail] 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >