Joel, I performed this review for the transport area. An IETF document should never attempt to redefine the word “transport” in a single sentence and refer to an unpublished draft (even mine) to explain. It takes more than that. > On Jul 29, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you want the terminology usage clarified, then what they have proposed is sufficient. > > If you want to change RFC 8300, this is not the place to do that. Agreed, but we cannot continue to propagate the error. At a minimum, the sentence should clarify that the term is being used inconsistently with the rest of IETF as a whole and explain what it means in a stand-alone way. That either warrants a separate (even if brief) section or at least a terminology section entry. Additionally, it is not feasible to review how their approach - which makes packets bigger, necessarily - without understanding how that tunneling works. Joe > On 7/29/2021 12:41 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> Insufficient. >>> On Jul 28, 2021, at 7:09 AM, tirumal reddy <kondtir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks Joseph for the detailed comment and explanation. We plan to add the following text to address the issue: >>> >>> Note that the term “transport encapsulation” used in this document is equivalent to the term “tunnel encapsulation” used In [ietf-intarea-tunnel]. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -Tiru >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 10:34, Joseph Touch via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> >>> Reviewer: Joseph Touch >>> Review result: Not Ready >>> >>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area >>> review team's >>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were >>> written >>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the >>> document's >>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also >>> to the IETF >>> discussion list for information. >>> >>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should >>> consider this >>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please >>> always CC >>> tsv-art@xxxxxxxx <mailto:tsv-art@xxxxxxxx> if you reply to or >>> forward this review. >>> >>> It was very difficult to review this document for IETF transport >>> protocol >>> considerations. >>> >>> Although "transport encapsulation" is indicated repeatedly, it is >>> never >>> referred to directly or described either in this document or its >>> citations. It >>> appears to be using this term in the sense of RFC8300, which too >>> never defines >>> it, but uses examples that are more accurately referred to in the >>> IETF as link >>> layer protocols or either network or link tunnel protocols (IP in >>> IP, GRE, >>> VXLAN, Ethernet). >>> >>> Regardless of the fact that this confusion originates in RFC8300, >>> it needs to >>> be addressed here and corrected before this document can be >>> reviewed to >>> determine if there are any IETF transport area issues. >>> >>> The remainder of these notes provide detail of this issue. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> The document refers back to RFC8300 to define the NSH itself; that >>> document >>> discusses transport issues just as vaguely (never mentioning a >>> particular >>> transport protocol), and when it discusses fragmentation, it >>> refers to section >>> 9 of a document (draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-02 from 2017) that had >>> expired prior >>> to the publication of RFC8300. Because transport fragmentation >>> is, IMO, a >>> normative issue, this should not have been permitted. >>> >>> Further, Section 9 of that draft incorrectly recommends reliance >>> on ICMP >>> feedback to address MTU failures when not under a single >>> operator’s management. >>> That was widely known even then to be insufficient due to >>> blackholing; this had >>> motivated PLPMTUD in RFC4821 a full decade earlier. RFC8300 >>> compounds this >>> error by simply asserting that the operator should ensure that >>> ICMPs are not >>> blocked, overlooking the need to address when this is not the case. >>> >>> This document cannot ignore that issue and simply refer to RFC8300 >>> on this >>> issue. >>> >>> Note that one of the only places an actual encapsulation protocol >>> is mentioned >>> is RFC8300, in which Section 5 mentions IP and Section 6.1 Table >>> 1 describes >>> VXLAN-GPE, GRE, and Ethernet – all of which are described as >>> “transport >>> encapsulation”. >>> >>> If, in fact, IETF transport protocols are being used, at some >>> point the use of >>> an actual IETF transport protocol should be described (e.g., TCP, >>> UDP, SCTP, >>> DCCP). At that point, the transport issues would be reviewable. As >>> the document >>> currently stands, it completely ignores such transport issues and >>> should not >>> proceed until this is addressed and re-reviewed. >>> >>> If instead, as I suspect, the term “transport encapsulation” >>> actually refers to >>> “network layer encapsulation” or “link layer encapsulation” and >>> really implies >>> some sort of tunnel, there would be no transport area issues to >>> review unless >>> that tunnel were to include a transport protocol as part of the >>> layers of >>> encapsulation. If that is the case, the document should be revised >>> to replace >>> the term “transport” with something that more accurately describes >>> VXLAN-GPE, >>> GRE, Ethernet, and IP encapsulation using IETF terminology. Note that >>> draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels never uses the term “transport” except when >>> referring to the use of IETF transport protocols as a tunnel >>> layer, e.g. (i.e., >>> the last sentence of Sec 8 of this doc is incorrect in implying >>> otherwise). >>> >>> (I would also note that neither this doc nor RFC8300 define “transport >>> encapsulation” in their terminology; even if they would, they >>> should not >>> attempt to define it in a way inconsistent with widespread use in >>> the IETF). >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> last-call mailing list >>> last-call@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
