Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 04 July 2022 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D0DC15791D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 12:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ocRa2fBjDaJW for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 12:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE3EC157908 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 12:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id j21so17313921lfe.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jul 2022 12:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VvNudMeNtheHCFcws0R9N1y0EiZl1u7CHkRZevdYFDM=; b=Y4DQIq5GPk/lIwDvz+BfktmJedmVkpS1K4NT34Mr332W+PFLqqIhtgc68yK50dsumS iNaY75DBhuP28Sfkzs9+LkJtakkHK7YEC9933TSBx4eZyFPFidPmuRDRNGzuq6iGtbbn f1PsiApjDsmZPd6p9WITbJnbVLPnu2WVfAPSqCEVKmSYXyknfyFzIDovS72PTP+4iWbh Pivl/S6T3r3f4txhsVUX2+dCVfXOfHbIxFgJxByIrqQ+L0r0c+igYpQxAF+kK4Pa76CO NfwC0/6aMyoJGdP89Fy+2Ma0VWqSKIdtROuFgaxJ5OZzAQyXF7pyVQyrft2DXq1Fkh0g 81tg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VvNudMeNtheHCFcws0R9N1y0EiZl1u7CHkRZevdYFDM=; b=s0PTm8YQAnA/RHrfCaUZ0YC4jKzP6UvO3Lbb3EmfGzwSXksHTT2XRbp5wbqoR7c4J7 ccy67ao6n2ZbsGJNvPEAQR9p7Y9zGEgI28+FGJS3ThBDkjRyhM4Si450QSoRZpe+su8f xWuNT3W9mRhX2v35Og/Q/unW1Cuf0noegKrDQN/tk3sCmuze+3gZHqYrRWfInMpKWUAP U2IqZjGBrmNCrum59VCBe9xXHZ+P4WBgXLwJbCBKbPoXWk6PyvG3j/L6O6WfVhXUWtYp uOOhKKHQsp9Db27FrkWrUP4/p3UYlPMYwMhhS3bCn8W+/s+YkjTShf38jDOi52K0wjfW 3TsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8SMfmnUMpEyO8mdS1BKOgl3f3GuWGSHGmLConCt47etTfXYPXK SCrfIBFcOnbag7XTCMuoShayKHLH5o1zj2iz7Q18Sg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sX2cIcJpg+e08BmAZCYl4eto7pF0Rp2zhPx30u69d83TBK2lt1lnADI/RvM32NtVcFq+iedxwmW5BaAPb8DB8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e4e:0:b0:47f:b3c0:2f3d with SMTP id f14-20020ac24e4e000000b0047fb3c02f3dmr19301445lfr.15.1656964376140; Mon, 04 Jul 2022 12:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165690747653.9313.6940379164951428048@ietfa.amsl.com> <DF6CF2BD-8418-4386-BB78-6E011A523FBA@strayalpha.com> <CABNhwV1SN+Ei_TScwUsg1scKhAAoxixfFTtXXghLXEPspU6gZA@mail.gmail.com> <893612ED-91B7-4492-8000-EF2D54AC49BC@strayalpha.com> <4688b79370e94df6b8af107a97be0a7f@hs-esslingen.de> <CAOj+MMGxUxqFko1R5yVkpc6Ujw6SJcOjB209YNKuGJo+MOZfvA@mail.gmail.com> <1c1e32001ce040268764783a5aa1e41f@hs-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <1c1e32001ce040268764783a5aa1e41f@hs-esslingen.de>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 21:52:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFaFHPFSXseaAjGWwmDLkph96weufVKYmP-qYxrR+uyDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000bb12c05e3001569"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/A7okU6CZe-mbkp0__JF74IT6x4w>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:53:02 -0000

Hi Michael,

Actually I used the URG flag example as this is used by one of the key
features in one of the major vendor's OS. Ability to see this flag to be
reported is IMO useful in this very application.

> on-path middleboxes.


That is not my concern at all. My focus is to use YANG on the endpoints to
avoid need to recreate TCP state via TAP captures. Like some of the good
analyzers allow you to do.



> many OS kernels don’t use YANG at all.


True - but is this the right argument ? Those will not benefit irrespective
of how small or big YANG model will be shipped.


> One could write a lot in a YANG model, but who would actually implement
that?


I would count on network vendors to implement it. And that is my personal
area of interest. Otherwise I would not care to comment :)

Thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:39 PM Scharf, Michael <
Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> the TCP Urgent Flag is discussed in RFC 6093 and probably not a good
> example for a TCP-feature relevant for modern applications (RFC 6093 stated
> more than 10 years ago “new applications SHOULD NOT employ the TCP urgent
> mechanism”).
>
>
>
> A modern TCP implementation actually has several windows and running TCP
> code either measures them in bytes or in segments. That results in quite
> some differences. So, even for TCP windows there is no simple way to model
> the actual behavior of widely deployed running code.
>
>
>
> And the algorithms of a modern TCP stack can imply more than 100
> parameters. Due to the complexity it is basically impossible to draw the
> line between “elementary” parameters and implementation-specific ones.
>
>
>
> All that was discussed in TCPM, and the WG consensus was not to boil the
> ocean. The very narrow scope of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp is a result of
> that discussion in TCPM. I have tried my best to explain the rationale
> inside the document.
>
>
>
> It may be possible to publish a more comprehensive TCP YANG model as a
> follow-up specification. But the first step would be to convince TCPM that
> this is feasible and that relevant stacks would indeed implement that YANG
> model.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 4, 2022 9:15 PM
> *To:* Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
> *Cc:* touch@strayalpha.com; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Last
> Call <last-call@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org;
> ops-dir@ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Last-Call] [tcpm] Opsdir telechat review of
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> > Any application can decide to configure TCP parameters as far as
> possible in the given operation
>
> > system, e.g., via the sockets API. That is orthogonal to the internals
> of the TCP implementation and the TCP protocol.
>
>
>
> While clients running on top of TCP can configure its parameters I would
> at least expect to be able to report such values (local and remote) when
> using the TCP YANG model. For example I can not find the Urgent Flag in the
> current YANG model. Same for elementary window size of any given
> connection, same for connection duration, .
>
>
>
> Inability to do so to me sounds like a half baked model. IMHO it is not
> ready to be even declared as MVP.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 6:06 PM Scharf, Michael <
> Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>
> Joe, all,
>
>
>
> „separate protocol specific YANG model” could be the YANG model for BGP,
> or for any other TCP-based application.
>
>
>
> Any application can decide to configure TCP parameters as far as possible
> in the given operation system, e.g., via the sockets API. That is
> orthogonal to the internals of the TCP implementation and the TCP protocol.
> The app configuration can be done in YANG or by other means. For the TCP
> stack, that does not matter.
>
>
>
> As far as I understand Gyan, the concerns regarding
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp are sorted out already.
>
>
>
> @all: Please speak up if specific changes are needed in
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp. The authors will have to focus on the IESG
> feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 4, 2022 4:38 PM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>;
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org; ops-dir@ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] Opsdir telechat review of
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>
> www.strayalpha.com
>
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Joe, authors  et all
>
>
>
> I reviewed the feedback from my earlier review in March and as this model
> is geared towards BGP primary.
>
>
>
> To address all of my concerns would be complicated for this Yang model, so
> the plan is that a separate protocol specific yang model would be a follow
> on to address all of my concerns.
>
>
>
> First, there should NEVER be two different YANG models for BGP routers vs.
> other routers or hosts. TCP is TCP is TCP. If that is an assumption for
> moving this document forward, TCPM should have a longer discussion about
> that point specifically.
>
>
>
> Second, my observations about your requests below stand, regardless of
> when/where current or future authors might be considering them.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:44 AM touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
> wrote:
>
> FWIW:
>
> > On Jul 3, 2022, at 9:04 PM, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
> > Review result: Not Ready
> >
> > This draft provides the Yang data mode for TCP.
> >
> > The draft is well written and is almost ready publication.  I verified
> the FSM
> > state machine and all states are listed.
> >
> > Minor issues:
> > None
> >
> > Major issues:
> > None
> >
> > Nits:
> > I reviewed the TCP Yang data model and has a question related to the FSM
> state
> > machine.
> >
> > Would it be possible to specify the TCP Header flags SYN, FIN, ACK, RST
> of BFD
> > FSM finite state machine Events and Transition.  I think this would be
> very
> > helpful for the TCP Yang model FSM state machine.  For each state you
> could
> > specify the flags set.
>
> These issues appear to have been raised by you in March during last call
> review. Some have been addressed by others before; I’ll add my input.
>
> The YANG model represents information about the current TCP connection. It
> is not (and should not be confused with) a specification of the protocol.
>
> Further, flags are associated with messages that cause state transitions,
> not states (i.e., the FSM is a Mealy machine, not a Moore machine). There
> is no “flags set for each state”.
>
> >
> http://tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPOperationalOverviewandtheTCPFiniteStateMachineF-2.htm
>
> That page has errors and is not consistent with RFC793 (or it’s pending
> -bis update). E.g., FIN stands for “finis” (latin for “end”), not “finish”.
>
> > I think the TCP TCB (TCP Control Block) is missing in the Yang model.
> This is
> > important for troubleshooting TCP connection state.
>
> RFC793 (and -bis) indicate that the STATUS command, which might return
> similar information, is optional.
>
> If there is connection information returned, I do not think it should be
> the TCB; that is an implementation-dependent parameter, not a universal
> property of TCP connections. As others have stated in previous responses to
> you review, the common subset of the TCB is already contained.
>
> I.e., I think the YANG model represents TCP information. It is not - and
> should not be confused with - a troubleshooting tool.
>
> Joe
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email **gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com* <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>
>