Re: [tcpm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06
"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Fri, 17 June 2022 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 50560C15AAEC; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 VgC36ZCgfZP7; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7440CC15AAEF; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD72625A2B; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:41:41 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1655455301; bh=D8EZxp34CfAiPSlFiccQcMkE64mV4WyUaFlqe4hL/CY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kgCagCg2DOIZ72EDYPINicJLIZ+SPsaBF84GjqCNNC/5aMM8hIzAAZbpfO50o6sqR +/w4L0ih5ajPxqFOid7DTufAiCEY7n9/mJBNdrqcvJlGAQSWNZNGWseSIhfAudVJLm IhjldBx5jT5vMo8EbyUuQLmBpYMW4/vvDEy2SrC4=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-ySogWqU3e3; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8201.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.28; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:41:39 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.028; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:41:39 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org>, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06
Thread-Index: AQHYLz1b6Riash00rkegGzG+jLiunq1TB/WAgADhgLA=
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:41:39 +0000
Message-ID: <8525a65dceb54c1cb881462def2b1a8c@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <164633935530.28300.11056800436644424942@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAM4esxRyxhTYTmav=qoJSERH+VOAjk9ZgnFv0rboeUw_rKc9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxRyxhTYTmav=qoJSERH+VOAjk9ZgnFv0rboeUw_rKc9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.249]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8525a65dceb54c1cb881462def2b1a8chsesslingende_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/WLbdiGgFdzbufWtx69vO32VRegM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:41:51 -0000
Hi all, To be more precise, we _have_ addressed parts of the OPSDIR review: 1/ We have described more precisely the differences to the TCP MIB, e.g., why the RTO configuration and the maximum connection limit is omitted. The RTO setup is simply only one of many algorithms of a modern TCP stack, and all have configuration parameters. And the RTO algorithm defined in the TCP MIB may not be the most relevant parameter in a modern stack. 2/ We have added the TCP connection state (i.e., the FSM) to the connection list. The description is aligned with the core TCP specification (793bis). 3/ We have also added the TCP listener list to better align with the TCP MIB. Please have a look at the new version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) or the diff (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) and let us know if more is needed. The remaining suggestions in the review (e.g., TCP flags, congestion control algorithms, TCB control block, …) would be additions to the model beyond the TCP MIB. Also, that would significantly change the scope of the model. As already explained by Martin, there is no consensus in TCPM on such a model. A follow-up RFC could be published in that space, if there was enough energy and community consensus. Best regards Michael From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 11:00 PM To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp.all@ietf.org; Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06 Gyan, Thanks for your review. The authors have finally updated the draft, but mostly did not address your review. It was explicitly not the intent of this effort to model every aspect of TCP implementations. There was strong WG consensus that this would be time-consuming and extremely unlikely to be deployed, as most TCP endpoints don't use YANG. Instead, this document is tightly focused on BGP routers, which do use YANG. To include more aspects of TCP, we would want to see evidence that is relevant to this use case. Martin Duke Transport AD. On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:29 PM Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review result: Not Ready The TCP FSM is of course the most critical component of the transport. It would be good to list all that is not included in the Yang model that exists in the TCP MIB. Also would be helpful as to reasons why. I see mentioned that RTO is not part of the Yang model, however to be complete I think it should be included. The yang model seems to not have all the TCP FSM states listed below: Closed Listen SYN RCVD SYN Sent Established FIN wait 1 FIN wait 2 Closing Time wait Close wait Last Ack Also the Yang model does not reference the TCP Flag bits set during state changes in the FSM below as well as flag combinations for example for establishment state you sent SYN, receive SYN/ACK, ACK URG ACK PUSH RESET SYN FIN I also don’t see anything in the Yang model on TCP window and window scaling and CWIN congestion control algorithm backoff. Also I don’t see any mention in the Yang model about the well known port range 0-1023 and > 1023 anonymous port range for the TCP socket to be established. Also mention about the TCP TCB control block. Local IP Local Port Remote IP Remote Port Interface Process State Local/Send window Remote/Receive window Send SQ Ack Send SQ Un-ack Send SQ Next Not to be sent Receive Next RTT Buffer pointer
- [tcpm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm… Gyan Mishra via Datatracker
- Re: [tcpm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Martin Duke
- Re: [tcpm] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scharf, Michael