Re: [tcpm] Open questions in draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-03

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 02 December 2019 21:48 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 EDAA9120018; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=hs-esslingen.de
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 BN_wX68NBWSg; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CD8112008C; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9908325A25; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:48:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1575323301; bh=en6n8+U39QeQZOa9VXuhScmpZgA+T3YsqnCflillWns=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ahL/TEm+UOr4xBj2+XgYzUrPriyTt5sm6W9dHL+cXDzwTo1FtRjEmqeNNKnZq8AWm COXnUupDIokla0ZOidCu4yJdEmf4SZz+dhr5k2caMI8U76LDNC5CkuZI85FLB1a649 2RW5y6K/mg6vRO/wVmboQks+WsHrg06oc7X1ETcU=
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 r2T_36rCTIV9; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:48:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:48:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.242]) by rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::f977:d5e6:6b09:56ac%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:48:18 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
CC: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, "draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org" <draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Open questions in draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-03
Thread-Index: AdWmGolxZReXGVxfT16zv56GRPhU5AAtLhiAAKHpWHA=
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:48:17 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D56A3CF@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D54D9D2@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <5491D316-6F86-4DD1-A92C-E64D41986823@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <5491D316-6F86-4DD1-A92C-E64D41986823@strayalpha.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.48.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ayoB-K5eHB51YVVvyTrbYBymuKY>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Open questions in draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-03
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:48:26 -0000

Hi Joe,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 6:09 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
> Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>; draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Open questions in draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-03
> 
> Hi, Michael,
> 
> > On Nov 28, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-
> esslingen.de> wrote:
> >
> > [chair hat off]
> >
> > At IETF 106 there was not enough time left for Mahesh to present the latest
> update of the document "YANG Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
> Configuration".
> >
> > Mahesh, Vishal and me have significantly updated draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-
> tcp-03 since the last meeting. The changes are summarized in the slides that
> can be found at:
> >
> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-yang-
> model-for-transmission-control-protocol-tcp-configuration-01
> >
> > Our proposal to refine the scope of the document. This results in at least 4
> questions:
> >
> > 1. Should the model support statistics?
> 
> IMO, no - that should be a different, optional model (TCP-stats or something).

I guess using a separate module would be possible. We can try to come up with a proposal that keeps the stats separate.

> > 2. Should it model all TCP connections?
> 
> I don’t know what that means, even given the slides. I would expect there to be
> some common practice for this in YANG models, i.e., to describe how state is
> grouped by address.

The TCP-MIB had a TCP connection list, as explained in draft version -00. In YANG, the original TCP-MIB entries would look as follows (just listed here as illustration):

     +--rw tcpConnectionEntry* [tcpConnectionLocalAddressType tcpConnectionLocalAddress tcpConnectionLocalPort tcpConnectionRemAddressType tcpConnectionRemAddress tcpConnectionRemPort]
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionLocalAddressType    inet-address:InetAddressType
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionLocalAddress        inet-address:InetAddress
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionLocalPort           inet-address:InetPortNumber
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionRemAddressType      inet-address:InetAddressType
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionRemAddress          inet-address:InetAddress
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionRemPort             inet-address:InetPortNumber
       |  +--rw tcpConnectionState?              enumeration
       |  +--ro tcpConnectionProcess?            uint32

There seem to be use cases in which a TCP connection list could be useful, most notably since such a list matters for a number of application protocols. A benefit of having this in a model published by TCPM would be consistency; then other working groups would not have to reinvent the wheel when having to access a list of TCP connections.

Thus, it could make sense to add this to the YANG model. The exact modeling is TBD. It would be a list, but not identical to what is presented above.

> > 3. Add support for TCP-AO?
> 
> It should include all current standards-track options IMO.

Yep, I am working on that. Nonetheless, TCP-AO is particularly relevant for TCP stacks that can be configured by NETCONF/YANG. This is why we ask for feedback from the community.

> > 4. Add support for TCP-MD5?
> 
> For the reason above, this should not be included - it is deprecated by TCP-AO.
> If supported, it should be clearly identified as deprecated.

The question comes from implementers; apparently there is still some use of TCP-MD5 in legacy deployments. We would have to clearly flag this as deprecated and add a big warning sign in the YANG model in order to encourage TCP-AO instead. That seems doable to me. And I can hardly imagine how to pass a SEC-DIR review without big warning signs ;-)

Thanks

Michael


> 
> Joe