[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ms-ospf
Subject: Re: [OSPF] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBCZW5vaXQgQ2xhaXNlJ3MgRGlzY3VzcyBv?= =?utf-8?q?n_draft-ietf-ospf-enca
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise () cisco ! com>
Date: 2017-09-11 10:19:55
Message-ID: e7797329-78e9-00c8-977d-fb280eb74518 () cisco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi Xiaohu,
My DISCUSS is at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/ballot/
Let me try to rephrase the second DISCUSS point.
The following sentence is so generic
Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
TLVs as defined in Section 5.
Basically, it says: you can receive 0, 1, or more instance of
0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
2 Protocol Type This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document
5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640]
6 IP QoS This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
7 UDP Destination Port This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
8-65499 Unassigned
65500-65534 Experimental This document
65535 Reserved This document
And my question/point: really, you want to be that open/liberal in terms
of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs?
You have really no rules? What if some combinations don't even make sense?
None of sub-TLVs are compulsory? Not even the Endpoint?
What does a Color mean without an Endpoint?
What do two IP QoS mean?
What do two Endpoints mean?
What do two different IP QoS with two different Endpoints mean?
etc...
I wonder how you could inter-operate?
Regards, Benoit
> Hi Benoit,
>
> The Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation \
> Type Sub-TLVs which in turn contain Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute \
> Sub-TLVs. More specifically, the intent of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs \
> contained in a given Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is to describe the specific \
> parameters to be used for the tunnel indicated by the Type of that Tunnel \
> Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV.
> I wonder whether I have understood your points correctly.
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> > 发送时间: 2017年9月11日 15:39
> > 收件人: The IESG
> > 抄送: tjw.ietf@gmail.com; ospf@ietf.org; acee@cisco.com; ospf-chairs@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org
> > 主题: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Dear authors,
> >
> > I see that a new version has been posted.
> > Can you let me know how my DISCUSS point 2 has been addressed?
> >
> > Regards, Benoit
> > > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 1. I agree with Tim Wicinski's OPS DIR point about IANA.
> > >
> > > The content appears to be fine, but there are some outdated (the
> > biggest
> > > one is 5226 replaced by 8126), but its the IANA section which appears
> > the
> > > most confusing.
> > >
> > > 7.1 OSPF Router Information (RI) Registry - appears fine
> > >
> > > 7.2 OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV Registry
> > >
> > > This one defines the values being defined/allocated from "This
> > Document"
> > > but in Section 5, each Sub-TLV is defined in other documents, so it's
> > > totally confusing.
> > >
> > > 2. It's not clear which of the following sub-TLVs are
> > > required/relevant/interconnected in the Encapsulation Capability TLV
> > >
> > > 0 Reserved This
> > document
> > > 1 Encapsulation This
> > document
> > > 2 Protocol Type This
> > document
> > > 3 Endpoint This
> > document
> > > 4 Color This
> > document
> > > 5 Load-Balancing Block This
> > document
> > > 6 IP QoS This
> > document
> > > 7 UDP Destination Port This
> > document
> > > The only hint is:
> > >
> > > Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
> > > TLVs as defined in Section 5.
> > >
> > > Zero? really, what's the point?
> > > Now, from an operational point of view, which sub-TLVs are required/make
> > sense?
> > > Are some sub-TLVs irrelevant without others? Ex: Color without
> > > Encapsulation Could we have multiple identical sub-TLVs? Ex: Color
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > - Sometimes you use "Encapsulation Capability TLV" (section 3),
> > > sometimes "The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV" I guess that: OLD:
> > >
> > > The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
> > >
> > > 0 1 2
> > 3
> > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Sub-TLVs
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > > The Encapsulation Capability TLV is structured as follows:
> > >
> > > 0 1 2
> > 3
> > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Sub-TLVs
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > >
> > > In section 7.1, should it be?
> > > OLD:
> > > Value TLV Name Reference
> > > ----- ------------------------------------ -------------
> > > TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > > Value TLV Name Reference
> > > ----- ------------------------------------ -------------
> > > TBD1 Encapsulation Capabilities This document
> > >
> > > OR:
> > > Value TLV Name Reference
> > > ----- ------------------------------------ -------------
> > > TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities This document
> > >
> > > - Then there is a discrepancy between Sub-TLVs and Value in the
> > > related text
> > >
> > > 0 1 2
> > 3
> > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Sub-TLVs
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > >
> > > Proposal: Sub-TLVs should be replaced by "Tunnel Encapsulation
> > > Attribute Sub-TLVs", and the following text updated:
> > >
> > > Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
> > > TLVs as defined in Section 5.
> > >
> > > - Then, reading section 5, I see yet another name: "OSPF Tunnel
> > > Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
> > >
> > > You should re-read the document to be consistent with your naming
> > > convention, in the text and in the IANA sections.
> > >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Xiaohu,<br>
<br>
My DISCUSS is at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/ballot/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/ballot/</a><br>
Let me try to rephrase the second DISCUSS point.<br>
The following sentence is so generic<br>
<pre class="ballot pasted"> Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel \
Encapsulation Attribute Sub- TLVs as defined in Section 5.</pre>
</div>
Basically, it says: you can receive 0, 1, or more instance of<br>
<pre> 0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation This document & \
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
2 Protocol Type This document & \
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document
5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640]
6 IP QoS This document & \
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
7 UDP Destination Port This document & \
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 8-65499 Unassigned
65500-65534 Experimental This document
65535 Reserved This document</pre>
And my question/point: really, you want to be that open/liberal in
terms of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs?<br>
You have really no rules? What if some combinations don't even make
sense?<br>
<br>
None of sub-TLVs are compulsory? Not even the Endpoint?<br>
What does a Color mean without an Endpoint?<br>
What do two IP QoS mean?<br>
What do two Endpoints mean?<br>
What do two different IP QoS with two different Endpoints mean?<br>
etc...<br>
<br>
I wonder how you could inter-operate?<br>
<br>
Regards, Benoit <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BC10CC9@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com">
<pre wrap="">Hi Benoit,
The Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation \
Type Sub-TLVs which in turn contain Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute \
Sub-TLVs. More specifically, the intent of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs \
contained in a given Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is to describe the specific \
parameters to be used for the tunnel indicated by the Type of that Tunnel \
Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV.
I wonder whether I have understood your points correctly.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Benoit Claise [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="mailto:bclaise@cisco.com">mailto:bclaise@cisco.com</a>] 发送时间: 2017年9月11日 15:39
收件人: The IESG
抄送: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:tjw.ietf@gmail.com">tjw.ietf@gmail.com</a>; <a \
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ospf@ietf.org">ospf@ietf.org</a>; <a \
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:acee@cisco.com">acee@cisco.com</a>; <a \
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:ospf-chairs@ietf.org">ospf-chairs@ietf.org</a>; <a \
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org">draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org</a>
主题: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Dear authors,
I see that a new version has been posted.
Can you let me know how my DISCUSS point 2 has been addressed?
Regards, Benoit
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
this introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html">https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html</a>
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I agree with Tim Wicinski's OPS DIR point about IANA.
The content appears to be fine, but there are some outdated (the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">biggest
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> one is 5226 replaced by 8126), but its the IANA section \
which appears </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> most confusing.
7.1 OSPF Router Information (RI) Registry - appears fine
7.2 OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV Registry
This one defines the values being defined/allocated from "This
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Document"
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> but in Section 5, each Sub-TLV is defined in other \
documents, so it's totally confusing.
2. It's not clear which of the following sub-TLVs are
required/relevant/interconnected in the Encapsulation Capability TLV
0 Reserved This
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 1 Encapsulation \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 2 Protocol Type \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 3 Endpoint \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 4 Color \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 5 Load-Balancing Block \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 6 IP QoS \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 7 UDP Destination Port \
This </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">document
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The only hint is:
Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
TLVs as defined in Section 5.
Zero? really, what's the point?
Now, from an operational point of view, which sub-TLVs are required/make
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">sense?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are some sub-TLVs irrelevant without others? Ex: Color without
Encapsulation Could we have multiple identical sub-TLVs? Ex: Color
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sometimes you use "Encapsulation Capability TLV" (section 3),
sometimes "The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV" I guess that: OLD:
The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
0 1 2
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">3
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 \
7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> | Sub-TLVs
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
The Encapsulation Capability TLV is structured as follows:
0 1 2
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">3
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 \
7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> | Sub-TLVs
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In section 7.1, should it be?
OLD:
Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
NEW:
Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Encapsulation Capabilities This document
OR:
Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities This document
- Then there is a discrepancy between Sub-TLVs and Value in the
related text
0 1 2
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">3
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 \
7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> | Sub-TLVs
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> |
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">|
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Proposal: Sub-TLVs should be replaced by "Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Sub-TLVs", and the following text updated:
Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
TLVs as defined in Section 5.
- Then, reading section 5, I see yet another name: "OSPF Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
You should re-read the document to be consistent with your naming
convention, in the text and in the IANA sections.
.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic