Re: [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 27 June 2017 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3762E12EB22; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ggvuSVQKK7b4; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 7F07312706D; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c73so22260690pfk.2; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8VmdHyhm89IzUbC3qV1TwYD8e6xl47fAo7vqc/TYvDA=; b=RppYG5iKVv78nrR3iGRwfNPkanWUQjnBbLl/GGPLfaw9WR6jG1+fb74WD1Lu6biod0 3obs9XvxuPNUUwZZ0Og4fcE0dA0L9F1ET61cH6SnD5QN+g7zs7zgMsgEWholz9Ildr3Y seXHxOyyyKj4b8A7vGGlZnxw++feMQL2ic+3BT5hbND/eDMvlCO0dItaOj/5XNRkkyND hpV6HBqHEMHy0W960c5SF6orn3KDbOOE2MY7+d2jQw+ruRBop6ZmpCiK79MAOyCk7UM0 z/QAarv/bKqKZCHGnK6sMTM1iUlWiMEvxoTrEZwsxUmam0sGCH8cNYAkosbjyJbH+dyP LYcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8VmdHyhm89IzUbC3qV1TwYD8e6xl47fAo7vqc/TYvDA=; b=ExrHcF7gu65L1th0+1dVJke6RWW4b26V78saQzeFONT5nyyVgk3LPzXUfSr+sJuG8X GZZy00+AiXRhOZaCSGNxvNn/8to/wHNskjkXuYcKEolg2mXcS+DtYd8mRQCoQ2L/PXmW 8QcJf+ONdvB5AUPl0bFbWQC3VYk5qnmrFeiK5RQf8rV/LxUd3nSvF+f8bucP2adN1QqB cnO8cLD4OWGu8c6Gyc5UQNVLIk3Vhfy5ftt7qlQIof3DSdUyae/XOkilV5ScrP7tE/Aj ktWo4PAnWrcxlbTM97HigEvcKeypMHsDvagKVtcRf+cBZ5bNoOlWSFzOIv4vbiFh9yCc XCdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzxt2Ojm9T18lK5UQwAQufwVFTJZPjrHjj/v5MpjilhuNeDAnuu i9muFSG64Mufgpny
X-Received: by 10.99.117.11 with SMTP id q11mr7017450pgc.179.1498597079815; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (28.216.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.216.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x25sm315142pfi.58.2017.06.27.13.57.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Zhangmingui (Martin)" <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation.all@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
References: <149826797586.7852.1637929087755767570@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEHfdCVoLcoKO-occ++pC7QUY2AwbKM6iuLU-K1s=YCd3g@mail.gmail.com> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A653E64C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <793ddc9a-db6c-9c16-48c2-79f728af6484@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:58:01 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A653E64C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/Fh9IFKjAiuccingXZ_hLb5vEJtU>
Subject: Re: [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:58:04 -0000
Thanks, all those changes seem good to me. If I am asked to review the next version for the IESG telechat, I expect to say "Ready". Regards Brian On 27/06/2017 20:06, Zhangmingui (Martin) wrote: > Hi Brian and Donald, > > Thanks a lot for the comments. Please see the responses as inline below. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:03 AM >> To: Brian Carpenter >> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org Review Team; draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation.all@ietf.org; >> trill@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05 >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks for the comments. See below. >> >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Brian Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>> >>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05 >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by >>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like >>> any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05.txt >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2017-06-24 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-28 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06 >>> >>> Summary: Ready with issues >>> -------- >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>>> 2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size >>> ... >>>> ...RBridges MUST support the Extended L1 Circuit-Scoped >>>> (E-L1CS) flooding scope LSP (FS-LSP). They use that flooding to >>>> exchange their maximally supportable value of "Lz". >>> >>> Where does that value come from? Is it configured, derived from the >>> interface in some way, or discovered? >> >> It's somewhat similar to the originatingL1LSPBufferSize which is talked about in >> Section 5 of RFC 7780, except that there is no reason to worry about >> coordinating across the TRILL campus. How about adding wording something >> like: >> >> The originatingSNPBufferSize for a port is the minimum of the following >> two quantities, but not less than 1470 bytes: (1) the maximum MTU of the port >> and (2) the maximum LSP size that the TRILL IS-IS implementation can handle, > > [Mingui] OK. > >> >>>> 2.1. Operations >>>> >>>> Lz is reported using a originatingSNPBufferSize TLV that MUST occur >>>> in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP. An >>>> originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment >>>> is ignored. >>> >>> Is that really what you mean? I thought Lz was an optional extra. So I >>> think you mean: >>> >>> 2.1. Operations >>> >>> Lz MAY be reported using a originatingSNPBufferSize TLV that occurs >>> in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP. An >>> originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment >>> MUST be ignored. > > [Mingui] OK. > >> >> Yes, the "MUST" was just in reference to being in fragment zero, not that it has >> to occur, so your wording seems better. >> >>>> 3. Link MTU Size Testing >>> ... >>>> Step 0: >>> ... >>>> b) Link MTU size is set to 1470, lowerBound is set to 1470, >>>> upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz, linkMtuSize is set to >>>> [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2] (Operation "[...]" returns the >>>> fraction-rounded-up integer.). >>> >>> This is confusing. "linkMtuSize" was defined as a local variable. >>> But what is "Link MTU size"? Is that another local variable? >>> If so, how is it different from "linkMtuSize"? >>> It is used again in part 2) of step 2 below. >> >> I don't want to say anything about that before checking with the primary >> author. > > [Mingui] As specified in the text leading the Steps, "linkMtuSize" is a local integer variable for a specific RBridge while "link MTU size" is not a variable but a value that is agreed by two connected RBridges. To avoid the confusion, I changed "linkMtuSize" to "X" and add the text to explain that link MTU size is a value that is agreed by two connected RBridges. > >> >>> Also, I assume "Lz" is the value previously agreed among the nodes, >>> but that should be made clear to the reader. > > [Mingui] Agree. Added the word "agreed" in Section 2. > >>> >>> Nits: >>> ----- >>> >>>> 1. Introduction >>> ... >>>> topology. While in this document, a new RECOMMENDED link-wide >> minimum >>>> inter-RBridge MTU size, Lz, is specified. By calculating a using Lz >>>> as specified herein, link-scoped PDUs can be formatted greater than >>>> the campus-wide Sz up to the link-wide minimum acceptable inter- >>>> RBridge MTU size potentially improving the efficiency of link >>>> utilization and speeding link state convergence. >>> >>> I cannot parse those two sentences. What does the "While" refer to? >>> What does "By calculating a using Lz" mean? >> >> I believe the sentences should be >> >> "... In this document, a new RECOMMENDED link-wide minimum inter-RBridge >> MTU size, Lz, is specified. By calculating and using Lz as specified herein, ..." > > [Mingui] OK. > >> >>>> 3. Link MTU Size Testing >>> ... >>>> b) Link MTU size is set to 1470, lowerBound is set to 1470, >>>> upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz, linkMtuSize is set to >>>> [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2] (Operation "[...]" returns the >>>> fraction-rounded-up integer.). >>> >>> This would be easier to understand: >>> >>> 3. Link MTU Size Testing >>> ... >>> b) Link MTU size is set to 1470, lowerBound is set to 1470, >>> upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz, linkMtuSize is set to >>> [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2], rounded up to the nearest >> integer. >> >> OK. >> >>> Repeat this in the following two cases; a normal reader will not >>> remember the rounding rule: > > [Mingui] Changed three occurrences in the document. > > >>> >>> ... >>> 1) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries: >>> >>> upperBound is set to linkMtuSize and linkMtuSize is set to >>> [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2], rounded up to the nearest >> integer. >>> >>> 2) If RB1 receives an MTU-ack to a probe of size linkMtuSize from >>> RB2: >>> >>> link MTU size is set to linkMtuSize, lowerBound is set to >>> linkMtuSize and linkMtuSize is set to [(lowerBound + >>> upperBound)/2], rounded up to the nearest integer. >> >> That seems reasonable. >> >>> -- >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =============================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > > > > Thanks, > Mingui >
- [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tri… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [trill] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Brian E Carpenter