[tcpm] TSVART review of I2NSF Re: Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?

tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> Fri, 24 September 2021 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.com>
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 DAEC23A2394 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 03:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
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 gja7FT9I1fNH for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 03:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr60134.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.6.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 087923A2392 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 03:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=bB3rB2zSvRshbo29+wT1C8YYC0qGqfPr9o2FA1LHXEuAqgZy2LXVq5srBB2ApOAcC3bbJlqwg1xrZFmWHOGGt+6zuqHyaCQh1/D3JO/eu0ZQqPQM5uj793taFV4R9JfJDf3KSGgc0qlx+SLoS3qp2gIQx7LkV40k1Bjx9XPIvetFIwKd1k7FS3xc1lwN+s7akfnBvtX6Q4rhvMMvAxSTj+cHKfUCv/xXwtfP4c3s5Mtl15UYiul6UfEKSVFgyxvpyACaOaPQnG8Ro0hqv27Ni1k5nXjZUsxgud9CDDy0qUpb5kzVGkwaCwa18WarjKu9VdClPkj0dF0o4p4eGRWZdg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=CS22VQRFTjyC/BtnF7qNAaMfskLXQem58qIMoqaMG5M=; b=Un8jOPd/0kDkDYm7+1lhioLV1BJJ73/rU9IUWcz2m22hEMU1hVcJrupTh5nkflWsf64d/PmT1pQPNbaafdDbD9NWUmGAeJzaZPBJ5U9wITp/98sMs9VNZ/QuWxuFWNFgtCb8db1GQKqrBz8578PigXqM4/zsK29ChXFvzKP2qI+AQ40s7ubdz3WVqyKeamnGEVE/OVlWKl8YZ5aqvRBZEsn7Re8QhSgNAdwJ+Wxm/wctYpgA1NXgCYuMyVEgzCnv7dhfvGaAEr3kA3/bysiEc5mnYzApAk9L6dJvZ4yTRlJ70xNoOsUvfjW40Oc3jDOOjNGQQ8yG+jlMK1SLwU5cjA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CS22VQRFTjyC/BtnF7qNAaMfskLXQem58qIMoqaMG5M=; b=UolN6w2pqg/O9f7rWqJ1FNojLxssWPqFUAMiM9o9MTVFkckLYwTwF2EiaKLHSCW/Izfbk+xIQiF816BNYWkvVxBjMQTf2PXwVSQ1K6WhP6P5Mf90NHpxXFOASzPhOQO1qooCYJRH/b2td7WI3iaIPGQrNoX1tCXX8cwiezy4rUM=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:73::23) by DB7PR07MB5803.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:86::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4566.9; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:51:48 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1df3:bc53:dcc9:1187]) by DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1df3:bc53:dcc9:1187%4]) with mapi id 15.20.4566.008; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:51:48 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TSVART review of I2NSF Re: [tcpm] Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?
Thread-Index: AQHXsSvE2vL69Su75kmXaEt9D4oYn6uy+qAAgAADoKg=
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:51:48 +0000
Message-ID: <DB7PR07MB554681A7FD560D8814D3766CA2A49@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <614DA301.4030902@btconnect.com> <f658da464f354a3bb7cda1331c1898f3@hs-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <f658da464f354a3bb7cda1331c1898f3@hs-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
suggested_attachment_session_id: 67d305a4-0443-a300-a944-e215da0fb86f
authentication-results: hs-esslingen.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;hs-esslingen.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 77edd03c-4b59-4362-5bd1-08d97f494f2f
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB5803:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB58038053CA07A19A68BF5549A2A49@DB7PR07MB5803.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(38070700005)(83380400001)(2906002)(71200400001)(9686003)(5660300002)(38100700002)(8936002)(110136005)(33656002)(508600001)(52536014)(966005)(122000001)(6506007)(53546011)(26005)(76116006)(66946007)(91956017)(316002)(55016002)(8676002)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(86362001)(7696005)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?iso-8859-1?Q?DlwhYIRXZ+Ce2sjyfXNwx/vLj1cl0iIyEVRIa9sQE9QvwThTcgVYzpJ+Ga?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?OBt6PBWfbeVexo6CWi9qxw5cj8fOxxJltMUENpXU/TG98HMwKRHwUhn13B?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?c7h2GYSyBfrKhU2RjeWcoBcZrsfa8y+0owtA4yZasFq9Nq31IfFZNE9HPO?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?5pHcf9nNhRgjPFZsKrAtHBgWmbyckyyDfgSwuL7JRZdyAc7EFnBoY67eSb?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?H/ohygXQ3RD3So9gr9sKHuHUdY+EFz+cdmsKEQwqbRj/l/776EJWwNtvuO?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ULFNX12xcQH1fzJlouQM1rQNMg3uqTwZuvlYcOpNJbrOULUgMwiaKGv+5g?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?v0r1M3FsvnKZwMhVXnEWR3mavpVF/n+7v2AYTrxBOktwBf3i9eCRZ2fONd?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?l4r/YApPikrNDoapAW/m6d5Wr+h9vCVVNafhpBy01W58qeTUmR0HutWJDM?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?mJKd7AoUy7uStnITu/sSBnBgrPFbdLioB7Efx9Ozx8z2Di9sFNV3Om6Lzv?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?IPtYfJm3J3gOnO7OAs3dSSgLuOf1p0MUnNeHZDosetdtgRXMBOexEuFDXg?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ABKMWpI0RN5ifcaeux8NvX1+2a9cq7htxkPC8BzeM3yAYtxQHDA6tEUEDW?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?UYeW53MoVh2UuCGCoBJuQYU73AIfu63nOBgeAT+1kOeG8AKGp2C7rxxw41?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?GVKmrJXYRSpCmB4hupzdC/EEyR7PG2So9B8aXsswoZPLsZCofx10H1i6rD?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?tXJkC12i4XyflWKXEKJD4j7II03cjZX/Kk+Tq5u2Dl6ILqx5P2hgZPeBbV?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?lcA3dQpt1OT9MyC5RIhb/YucPW1Ss0lGLMdxBqAMODLF7D9gZ2pfI5lEQC?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?YAH5IvW/+KVLVKu0MOUBa9t1LGTpQ955FtX0DAitvalrYxDiTGTql2hrbz?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?SiFY+1t30t8uo9KZZXz8kLrskjOt+pOdB4SV5o1gxvpfs9gvJ+fdVMfewr?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?G5b2pMhmL3017ee4iTnHrn02hIBaZ1u+O+PPV3U4prdl1QV6nbGsHfbwbI?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?7iHaJAd0JZDbftxfZQNqN28Ore3TRnh1fN6DVZcpd8oImDdaOJgmLAiFJm?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?HFJB64uUAPyrrCrOK3h0/tA4AnZ8CPTp7FFl0Rj7OQ0r/N14ErjoFZt0eD?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?2oHsjl+SvUn5klbcU2tTTOStp9VfozKQhVFCFnOXxsIDDJY8vdi7KXXXLJ?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?gwYOC5wykRF0s0gskG+KBMcAJYYpXiun0gJBGcLu6ZqscuUx9NPlwzVWhF?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?cjAWy6Iwozj+tyzWBdrs+G9WblhHz6M7YENhboFo9M5AtU4=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 77edd03c-4b59-4362-5bd1-08d97f494f2f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Sep 2021 10:51:48.6080 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: lJYX41gq60OfP6BdczLJHGnqdjqdvTxiPtEJCNkLqURMQnT5ZEEexe7+74qtgkczISluReEQQM2Yj0Dk5MFWKw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB5803
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/FkbEKlZSAN4zgARXL6DBTWUR-hw>
Subject: [tcpm] TSVART review of I2NSF Re: Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:51:57 -0000

From: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Sent: 24 September 2021 11:25
To: tom petch; tcpm
Subject: RE: [tcpm] Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?

Thanks for the heads-up!

As already noted by Tom, there are multiple documents in the I2NSF working group.

As TSV-ART reviewer, I have pushed already back against similar issues in draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/94nz77vNHDpP8DkbXb2hzuuBjRk/

<tp>
Ah yes I had not seen that review.  I agree with most but not all of the review.  I found that I had to read five I-D, one now an RFC, to see how they hang together.  Thus I see capability as higher level and not needing the detail, whereas nsf-facing and consumer-facing are lower level and need the detail of which aspects of e.g. TCP header need to be specified in the I-D.

The five I-D were reviewed by five different YANG doctors which I find unfortunate; there is so much overlap that I think that you have to read all five.  Changing one may be an improvement but may make it out of line without changing the others (and one is an RFC).  I see 'capability-data-model', now -18,  as the starting point and have worked to bring the others in line with that if only in terminology.

Tom Petch

p.s. my ESP thinks that these e-mail are junk - grrrrr.

It would probably help if more contributors to TCPM have a look at these documents in I2NSF.

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of t petch
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 12:06 PM
> To: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
> Subject: [tcpm] Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?
>
> This question came to me seeing the IESG discussion of an OPSAWG I-D
> which modelled, in part, TCP, in YANG, but did not model it the way TCPM
> does.
>
> There is a lot of this about, as in I2NSF, which has the most detailed
> model I see of TCP although not in a way that is likely to be used by
> those operating TCP.
>
> Thus draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm provides identities such as
>      identity tcp-flags {
> which is then used as
>
>    base tcp-flags;
>      identity cwr {
>      identity ecn {
>      identity urg {
>      identity ack {
>      identity psh {
>      identity rst {
>      identity syn {
>      identity fin {
> with descriptions and references.  My knowledge of this is limited but I
> suspect that the reference for 'ecn' should be RFC3168 and not RFC793
> but then should it be 'ece' and not 'ecn'?  I suspect that a TCP expert
> might see rather more idiosyncrasies.  Is RFC793 still the right
> reference or should it be 793bis? Both are used.
>
> Details of TCP also appear in
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model
> as do details of IP and a wide range of application and transport
> protocols; I suspect that those with an attention to detail and an
> interest in transport could have a field day here.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm