Re: [Last-Call] [I2nsf] [IPsec] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Hi Christian (, Rob):

Thanks for your comments. We really appreciate them. Please see some comments inline.

El 12 oct 2020, a las 22:21, Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió:



On Oct 12, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@xxxxx> wrote:

Hi Rob:

My apologies but I have just seen this e-mail. We were working on posting last v09 precisely today, assuming this was all clarified and the decision was to change the names as Tom suggested.

Regarding your comment, having "the notifications in the ikeless module as a feature" would not help. Let me explain. The ikeless module needs something inherent to operate, which are the notifications. It is not something optional for the ikeless module to implement.

That does not seem like enough justification for not having the module be usable in such a broader fashion. It is obvious to anyone implementing this for your use case that the notifications must be implemented. If you feel that it is not obvious for some reason a simple sentence can make that clear. Although I would think that sentence might start with the word "Obviously, ..." :)

As you may remember we gave several justifications about why these changes are not correct in the context of the I2NSF work. Let me send you the link to avoid repeating myself :) 


Thus, the change “the notifications in the ikeless module as a feature” is just the tip of the iceberg of a bigger change discussed in that link (moving SAD container to the common module). In other words, just simply adding "the notifications in the ikeless module as a feature” is not useful and does not help. In fact, the notifications must be defined in the ikeless module, and adding a feature in the ikeless module would not make any sense. 

As a consequence, the resolution was to move forward with a pragmatic approach at this point of time, by changing the names of the modules (and prefixes) to refer to the I2NSF work.

Best Regards.


Thanks,
Chris.


Hope this helps.

Best Regards.

El 12 oct 2020, a las 18:01, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:

Hi Rafa, authors,
 
Just to check.
 
Has there been any closure on the suggestion from Chris on “notifications in the ikeless module as a feature"?  This would seem to be a fairly cheap & easy compromise.
 
Thanks,
Rob
 
 
From: yang-doctors <yang-doctors-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: 27 September 2020 15:26
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>; Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; i2nsf@xxxxxxxx; Gabriel Lopez <gabilm@xxxxx>; draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection.all@xxxxxxxx; ipsec@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@xxxxx>; yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [IPsec] [Last-Call] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08
 
This is a sub-optimal compromise b/c all IPsec have SA databases even ones running IKE -- i.e., SA databases are common whether exposed in YANG or not -- but if it can move it forward perhaps good enough.


Speaking as an interested party, I hope that some compromise / good enough solution is followed in the -09 version of  this draft.

Lou

On 9/23/2020 7:20 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
 


On Sep 23, 2020, at 6:58 AM, Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
 
Hi,

Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




On Sep 23, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@xxxxx> wrote:




But I would like to check: My understanding is that the changes that
Chris is proposing are pretty small.  I.e. move the SA structure under
ipsec-common, and put it under a YANG feature.  Are you sure that it
is impractical to accommodate this change which would allow a single
ipsec module to be shared and extended via YANG augmentations?


In the context of our I-D, if we move SAD structure to ipsec-common,
what we are meaning is that IPsec SA configuration data (setting
values to the SAD structure) are common to the IKE case and the
IKE-less cases, which are not. It is confusing.

Something defined in a common module but marked as a feature does not
imply that that feature has to be implemented by an importing
module. This is not confusing to YANG implementers or users I
think. If we are just talking about document flow here, then a
sentence saying "the SAD feature is not required to implement IKE
functionality" is quite enough to clear that up I think.

Another alternative could be to move these containers to another
(new) module.
 
It may also be enough to mark the notifications in the ikeless module as a feature I suppose. That is the actual thing I think non-SDN implementations would want to omit. The module name "ikeless" is not great in this case, but perhaps workable.


This is a sub-optimal compromise b/c all IPsec have SA databases even ones running IKE -- i.e., SA databases are common whether exposed in YANG or not -- but if it can move it forward perhaps good enough.


I'm definitely concerned about IETF process and real world usability here. These modules are basically workable for ipsec I think, they could be used by operators today. If we restart the entire process to redo this work for the more generic IPsec case it will probably be years before they are finished and in the field. This new work can be started, but why not have something usable in the meantime?
 
Thanks,
Chris.
 


/martin





Thanks,
Chris.


Moreover, the usage of feature means that, after all, this “common” is
not “common” to both cases IKE case and IKE-less. Again, it seems
confusing. In the IKE case, the SDN/I2NSF controller does not
configure the SAD at all but the IKE implementation in the NSF. In our
opinion, in order to properly add this IPsec SA operational state to
the IKE case we should include operational data about the IPsec SAs
(config false) to the ietf-ipsec-ike. Alternatively, we have certain
operational data (ro) in the SAD structure in the IKE-less case. If
only those are moved to the common part should be ok but we think it
does not solve the problem.

 



_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

-------------------------------------------------------
Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: rafa@xxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

-------------------------------------------------------
Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: rafa@xxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------




-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux