-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 6:24 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Joel M. Halpern
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@xxxxxxxx; int-area@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx;
pals-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mpls-chairs@xxxxxxxx; l2tpext-chairs@xxxxxxxx; The
IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
I cannot quite work out from the document how this works, but if we are
going to PING non-IP interfaces I think the groups that work on those need
some time to reflect on the implications.
There are certainly a number of non-IP interfaces that may have Ethernet
addresses.
However, I am not sure from a quick look at the text how you would address
any interface running a PW other than Ethernet.
Bottom line, I think this needs to either preclude non-IP interfaces, or the
groups that work with non-IP interfaces need to think through the
implications, and possibly propose new identifier types.
- Stewart
On 04/12/2017 22:48, Ron Bonica wrote:
Joel,
The important piece of information is that this is a pseudowire endpoint.
These days, most pseudowire endpoints seem to be Ethernet. But some
aren't. There are still some legacy layer 2 pseudowires hanging around.
So, since we can't enumerate every type of pseudowire endpoint, we
might as well just call it a pseudowire endpoint and provide no further
information about the type.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@xxxxxxxx; int-area@xxxxxxxx;
ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Thank you Ron.
On the E-bit (or P-Bit), is the important goal that it is a virtual
interface, that it is pseudowire, or ? It might help there text
indicating what a receiver might do differently based on this bit being set
or unset.
Having said that, Ethernet Pseudowire is at least a clearer
distinction than just "Ethernet". And as long as the bit has a clear
definition, any disagreement about what "should" be identified is clealry
NOT a show stopper.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/4/17 4:13 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review. Responses inline......
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@xxxxxxxx; int-area@xxxxxxxx;
ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Ready
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr
6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=hKAAxSQXBFWxkxtwUUKzdYcvZ22_3zrp0OZhHK
V2AH4&s=X_Kje37D5HB_DdICxGgn_TkAqoXymCuJdJetUjwYPy4&e=>.
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard RFC.
Major issues:
I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are
sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used. The texts
seems to indicate
that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed
interface.
But I can not see how.
[RB ]
Good catch.
At one time I thought that this was necessary because IPv6
link-local
addresses are not necessarily unique to the node. So, you might need
to probe by IP address and something else (e.g., ifName). However,
ifName is unique to the node. So, one instance of the interface
identification object is enough.
I will remove that sentence.
Minor issues:
In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is
identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC
2863. I
would
expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223,
the YANG model for the Interface stack.
[RB ]
Fair enough. I will make that change in the next version.
The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd.
Shall we try
to
encode all the possible interface types in this field? Shall we try to
distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...? What
about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.) I do not
understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous.
[RB ]
Looking back, I described that badly. This bit is set if the
interface is a
pseudowire endpoint and it is running Ethernet.
Maybe I should call it the P-bit for Pseudowire endpoint. We don't
need to
specify what type of pseudowire it is.
What do you think?
Nits/editorial comments:
I find the description of the node containing the proxy
interface as
being
"the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the
node
containing
the probed interface. I would have expected it to be called "the
proxy
node"?
[RB ]
Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision.
Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is
equal
to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to
say "otherwise, clear the A-bit."
[RB ]
Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__www.ietf.org_mail
man_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
ndb3voDT
XcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=3aYviNNhuXQukU
cgg_np7tq6-CJZDv9M_hHVW_ulyzo&s=7TxRC3k3Vsozba6OX8GmaFv_c-
9INm2pcVkjqx
sPpr0&e=