[spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 20 June 2018 16:40 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: spring@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8251131120; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop@ietf.org, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, robjs@google.com, spring@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152951284387.28600.11874107921186798735.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:40:43 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/hyxexzvHyo9QrAS1CaPaNAOiUY4>
Subject: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:40:54 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I may be missing something, but I don't see anything that says whether the preference field introduced in Section 3.2.3 uses larger values or smaller values for more-preferred SRMSes. The introduction of the SRMS is also introducing a new way for a protocol participant to make claims about route prefixes directed at "third parties" (non-MS, non-MC routers). While routing protocols in general do require high levels of trust in all participants in order for proper routing to occur, this addition seems to create a "first among equals" situation that could be called out more clearly in the security considerations. (I do appreciate that the requirement for preferring SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements over those advertised in mapping server advertisements does help alleviate some of the risk.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Alissa's suggestion about the text covering cryptographic authentication. "[100,300]" and "(100,200)" are each used as an example SRGB. In some contexts the round versus square brackets indicate a distinction between "closed" (includes endpoints) and "open" (does not include endpoints) intervals. If there's no need to make such a distinction, I suggest standardizing one one format. As was mentioned in the secdir review, it would be good to expand FEC and LFA on first usage. Section 1 Section 2 describes the co-existence of SR with other MPLS Control Plane. [...] nit: "other MPLS Control Plane" seems to be an incomplete compound noun -- is it other control plane technologies that are being considered? Section 2 Note that this static label allocation capability of the label manager exists for many years across several vendors and hence is not new. Furthermore, note that the label-manager ability to statically allocate a range of labels to a specific application is not new either. [...] nits: "has existed", "label-manager's ability". Section 2.1 MPLS2MPLS refers the forwarding behavior where a router receives an labeled packet and switches it out as a labeled packet. Several nit: "refers to", "a labeled packet" Section 3.2 This section defines the Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS). The SRMS is a IGP node advertising mapping between Segment Identifiers (SID) and prefixes advertised by other IGP nodes. The SRMS uses a dedicated IGP extension (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3) which is protocol specific and defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. nit: Perhaps "IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 are currently supported" is a better parenthetical? The example diagram depicted in Figure 3 assumes that the operator configures P5 to act as a Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) and advertises the following mappings: (P7, 107), (P8, 108), (PE3, 103) and (PE4, 104). nit: I think this is Figure 2. Section 3.2.1 [...] Examples of explicit prefix-SID advertisment are the prefix-SID sub-TLVs defined in ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]). Would draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid (also on this week's telechat) be appropriate for inclusion in this list? for that prefix. Hence assigning a prefix-SID to a prefix using the SRMS functionality does not preclude assigning the same or different prefix-SID(s) to the same prefix using explict prefix-SID advertisement such as the aforementioned prefix-SID sub-TLV. nit: I think the aforementioned things were a list, so "sub-TLVs" plural would be appropriate. Including the name for IS-IS TLV 135 might be helpful for the reader.
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-s… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk