Hi Tom, > [the current proposed Note makes no mention of updating the MIB module, > rather it takes it for granted that it will happen which the current > IANA pages do not spell out] The draft does not include any instruction about the MIB module because this is already implemented by IANA (4087). If you check the latest version if the if MIB at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, you can see the following change: REVISION "201902140000Z" -- February 14, 2019 DESCRIPTION "Registration of new tunnelType 18." Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : tom petch [mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : vendredi 7 juin 2019 13:40 > À : Eric Vyncke (evyncke); David Black; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf; draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04 > > Eric > > To be more concrete about the changes I propose to this I-D, after some > off-list discussion. > > This I-D should ask IANA to insert the name > tunnelType Definitions > at the URL > https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbe > rs-6: > to make it clear that this is the registry for tunnels not just a MIB > module or an appendage to the interface registry > [this also brings the IANA pages more in line with the instructions to > IANA in > this I-D] > > The Note proposed in this I-D should be expanded to say something along > the lines of > > "Updates to this registry will propagate updates to both the IANA > maintained ianaiftype-mib MIB module, as defined in RFC4087, and to the > tunnelType YANG module, as defined in RFCXXXX" > > [the current proposed Note makes no mention of updating the MIB module, > rather it takes it for granted that it will happen which the current > IANA pages do not spell out] > > Alongside > 'For a functional mib language definition ...' > IANA should be asked to add a reference > 'For a functional YANG language definition ...' > > This I-D makes no mention of the need for an integer associated with a > new tunnel type which the YANG does not require but which the SMI does. > I would prefer that this be mentioned in this I-D for completeness. > > Some or all of which I see as an update to RFC4087 > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx>; "David Black" > <david.black@xxxxxxxx>; <tsv-art@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: <softwires@xxxxxxxx>; "ietf" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; > <draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel.all@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 5:36 PM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:07 AM > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Thank you again for the review. > > > > > > After discussion with Dave Thaler (who maintains the tunnel type > IANA > > registry), it appears that the draft can go forward without waiting > for > > a complete IANA registry for tunnel types. > > > > Eric > > > > Accepting that not all tunnel types will be in the IANA YANG module, I > > think that there is another unresolved issue that I see as > problematic. > > > > The I-D talks of the IANA tunnelType Table, as in s.4.2, but I see no > > such thing on the IANA website. There is a MIB module but that is not > a > > registry. The referenced URL is > > Internet-standard MIB - > > mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType > > a MIB module, not a registry. > > > > The treatment of interfaces and tunnels by IANA are different. > > Interfaces have a registry and when that is updated, that drives > updates > > to a YANG module and a MIB module > > > > Tunnels do not have a registry, just a MIB module. Probably this I-D > > should create a registry of tunnels so that MIB and YANG tunnel > modules > > can be updated in the same way as Interface ones are. As it is, I see > > nowhere for the new text relating to a YANG module to go in the > existing > > IANA pages. > > > > I realise that the Expert Reviewer thinks he can manage but I want the > > IANA pages to make sense more widely than that. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > -éric > > > > > > On 08/05/2019, 00:45, "David Black via Datatracker" > > <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Reviewer: David Black > > > 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 if you reply to or forward this review. > > > > > > This draft defines a YANG module for tunnel types based on the > > MIB-2 > > > tunnel type registry maintained by IANA. > > > > > > My fundamental concern with this draft is that the MIB-2 tunnel > > type > > > registry is seriously incomplete and out of date, as there are a > > large > > > number of tunnel types that aren't included in that registry, > > e.g., IPsec > > > tunnel-mode AMT tunneling. In its current form, that registry > > does not > > > appear to be a good starting point for specifying YANG > management > > of > > > tunnels. > > > > > > A limited justification that I could envision for defining this > > YANG module > > > would be to use it for mechanical translations to YANG of > existing > > MIBs > > > that use MIB-2 tunnel types - if that's the justification, then > it > > would need > > > to be clearly stated in an applicability statement within this > > draft, and the > > > discussion of extension of this YANG module would need to be > > aligned with > > > that limited applicability. > > > > > > The proverbial "right thing to do" would be to update both the > > MIB-2 tunnel > > > type registry and this draft with all of the currently known > > tunnel types. > > > The references section of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim > > > > > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim/) > > > may help in identifying tunnel protocols that should be > included. > > > > > > A minor concern involves the use of RFC 8085 as the reference > for > > UDP > > > tunnels; while that's certainly better than the existing use of > > RFC 4087, due > > > to the extensive design guidance in RFC 8085, designers of > > UDP-encapsulated > > > tunnel protocols ought to be encouraged to register their > > protocols as separate > > > tunnel types (e.g., so the network operator has some idea of > what > > the UDP > > > tunnel is actually being used for). This draft ought to > encourage > > tunnel > > > protocol designers to register their own tunnel types in > > preference to reuse > > > of the UDP tunnel type, including placing text in the IANA > tunnel > > type > > > registry and this YANG module to encourage that course of > action. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
