Re: [trill] Genart LC (and likely telechat) review : draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-04

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 01 July 2016 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 CD13012B068; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 2Y30jh97UNzA; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 F27AB12B061; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f189so113434853oig.3; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A/vEzUbzflAUIApwmfgvs92s9q4hEVPKXZGXSAjmSms=; b=oAde51t5t8O+r9x0WWwBrLt1uz/Z5Q4GaZugZfI53dNt4AZKcXVceazCY0G1oMGWhF yh+UP23ggLnR3S5brD+n1nA8/08a/YUbgYN/TP0JOlGIQ/EOvcIp+007pGUJ4whdQlG8 d2DVbxD9eEPZul8gJkIbCWhid0q6NMnbZ/njrnIGcFF5aMkFnsX6mQjO3+IGNKkYomDp ZCamst2fX+gfF3585VDEstwHlTAq8wxpdZY5suAKTTiKnxDlxpPFPvDeo21xb0wBuKgH vAEzM3sxmp3Vwu2KtEGC7Gzursjni9UZOfAlGlNrmGBpqyt8JwPT/U3BDpl2KjFo9q+L dyRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=A/vEzUbzflAUIApwmfgvs92s9q4hEVPKXZGXSAjmSms=; b=RFz51lfm3FTS6sTt/ljhGpkQB9pU1uDs0mzB2K1fPhP4b6VIGv8oH8coSrN3sz9fsH vi/pf/e5a7v7uzKvQzYuFVV/VEnktVlFUXBbc520bkYdLsQaYUiAZzgRfH/7AsIWGkPJ WVUCXs2jwGvDAPSx++ymJZkczv/rlgdpGGdUd2L4fgnKSuIgvUGQORUTnQeuVZIQg1/X ORGJbXtIMWvJSaSf5VD18ZmhrfkUzLOnue8QG4tUPULfF1AsH3K4a3mr4w4vQOCHVHtM U5kDuj6mEKBkyPg3Y+StP4GMF66e3x3QOwqh4e/Kh9alXdmwLYA18rrvyqAwvPYZzeaa bHsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKz3u6JfOtXXk/v8vKQuOQuu2N3Izd5aDKb1CZ7Y3x5hFWHtYeHiRKxZg81xzWAP3KaLNYd11n5+aF9HQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.2.198 with SMTP id 64mr13877933otl.159.1467384211218; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.242 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFnZy16ioccGNjuT2_fdwdqvWnchiPJxcHpVzZyFvHLCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3e13ce97-7b88-1e07-f423-eb0423db8b5f@nostrum.com> <CAF4+nEFnZy16ioccGNjuT2_fdwdqvWnchiPJxcHpVzZyFvHLCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:43:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHopG4jmp103j8d3LWo=pzZFBCu6r+8yvg=z9uYMCmskA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/yCpljmstuHFlNk3ab1BoQ11aquA>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection.all@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Genart LC (and likely telechat) review : draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-04
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 14:43:34 -0000

Hi Robert,

A version -05 has been uploaded with the intent that it resolve your comments.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for your thorough comments. See below.
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
> wrote:
>> 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-tree-selection-04
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review Date: 28 Jun 2016
>> IETF LC End Date: 1 Jul 2016
>> IESG Telechat date: 7 Jul 2016
>>
>> Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> This document is easy to read, even for someone not deeply steeped
>> in trill.
>>
>> I have a few questions and suggestions to consider
>>
>> 1) The essence of the idea this document provides support for is that an
>> operator will create and install a configuration that meets the one tree per
>> identifiable thing (such as VLAN) constraint.
>
> Well, it helps as long as multi-destination traffic identified by VLAN
> or whatever is carried by fewer than all trees. It need not be one.
>
>> The protocol proposed here
>> does not try to enforce that the operator supplies a configuration meeting
>> that constraint. Should the things that generate messages with the TLVs
>> defined in this document be restricted from sending messages that would map
>> the same VLAN to two trees? I understand things will still work
>> (suboptimally, as pointed out in the backwards-compatibility section), but
>> it seems this configuration error should be mitigated. Section 3.3 also
>> pulls the punch a little with it's discussion at the end of the second
>> paragraph. If you're going to leave it up to the unspecified way the
>> operator installs this configuration, you might at least point out that this
>> is something to look for and complain about. If you think the optimal
>> configuration isn't a likely thing to reach, then consider a pass through
>> the document that sets that expectation consistently.
>
> While restricting, for example, VLAN-x to one tree is optimal from the
> point of view of using up the least amount of fast path FIB
> (Forwarding Information Base) resources in some hardware
> implementations, it is not optimal from the point of view of load
> spreading. To get optimal load spreading, you would want to spread
> different multi-destination flows onto different distribution trees.
>
>> 2) There are a couple of places where you use 2119 where you appear to be
>> restating requirements from other documents. That's dangerous, from a
>> document set maintenance point of view. Please consider changing these to
>> simple prose, leaving the 2119 requirements to the protocol you're defining
>> in this document. Please look at the SHOULD in the Background Description,
>> and the SHOULD NOT in the first paragraph of the Overview. (2119 in sections
>> like backgrounds and overviews is usually a sign that somethings in the
>> wrong place.)
>
> The SHOULD in the Background Description is indeed just echoing the
> same provision from [RFC6325] and can be changed to not use a 2119 keyword.
>
> The SHOULD NOT in the first paragraph of the Overview (Section 3.1) is
> entirely due to theis draft and not inhereted from any other document.
>
>> 3) In the 3rd paragraph of 3.3, why is the requirement SHOULD strength? What
>> else would the RBridge do, and when would it be reasonable for it to do that
>> something else?
>
> The "SHOULD" requirement is to use a tree that the choosing RBridge
> has advertised it will use; however, it is not actually required to
> advertise which tree(s) it will use. Furthermore, even if it has, that
> tree(s) might just have become unavailable due to one or more
> failures.  We can probably add some words to clarify that.
>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> * You use a lot of domain-specific acronyms in section 1 before saying what
>> they mean in section 2.
>
> Looks to me like the terminology section could be moved up.
>
>> * The first sentence in the 8th paragraph of 1.2 is very
>> complex. (It's the one that starts "In cases where blocks
>> of"). Please consider simplifying it.
>
> I think it can be re-worded.
>
>> * Section 2: (I'm no fun) Do you want this alternate expansion of
>> FGL to stand?
>
> Nope... Looks like a global replace run amok or something, that should
> be fixed :-)
>
>> * Figure 2: the left table has a VLAN of 4095, which is inconsistent
>> with the prose.
>
> Shold be fixed. 4095 (0xFFF) is not a valid VLAN ID.
>
>> * In section 3.4 you use 2119 RECOMMENDED (which is equivalent to
>> SHOULD) when describing how the operator configures things. This
>> isn't a constraint on the protocol defined in this document. Please
>> consider rewriting the sentence without the 2119 keyword.
>
> Humm. I think those are good operational recommendations. We can try
> changing "RECOMMEND" to "suggest" and see if we get push back to
> change it back :-)
>
>> * Micronits: there's spurious space at the beginning of the 3rd line
>> on page 6. There's an occurrence of BRridge that probably should
>> have been RBridge in section 3.4, and "assigne" appears in the IANA
>> Considerations.
>
> OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com