Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt

Kathleen -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:29 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: [email protected]; Mirja Kühlewind; Adam Roach; Eric Rescorla; Suresh
> Krishnan; Benoit Claise (bclaise); [email protected]; Alissa Cooper;
> Alvaro Retana (aretana); Ben Campbell
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Folks -
> >
> > This revision addresses a number of review comments received during
> IESG review.
> >
> > Here are some responses to some of the points raised by reviewers (all
> reviewers have been copied on this email I hope).
> >
> > 1)Security section has been revised.
> >
> > 2)* Appendix A: The length value for "L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors"
> > under "TLV for Adjacency #2" is wrong. It says 29 but it needs to be
> > 32
> >
> > This has been corrected - thank you Suresh.
> > I also changed to using RFC5737 approved addresses in the examples.
> >
> > 3)Comments provided by Mahesh in his OPS DIR review and cited by
> > Benoit have been addressed
> >
> > 4)Alvaro commented:
> >
> >     " I would like to see some discussion related to the "interface" with these
> external entities."
> >
> > I have added explicit text indicating this is out of scope. To defend this here
> are several examples:
> >
> >    RFC 5305 does not discuss how link attribute information is passed to TE
> applications
> >    Protocol documents do not define how information is passed to PCE - we
> have PCE WG documents for that
> >    Protocol documents do not define how link state info is passed to
> > BGP-LS - we write separate BGP-LS drafts for that
> >
> > I hope my response suffices.
> >
> > 5)Kathleen Moriarty argued that advertisement of
> >    o  IPv4 Interface Address (sub-TLV 6 defined in [RFC5305])
> >    o  IPv6 Interface Address (sub-TLV 12 defined in [RFC6119])
> >    o  Link Local/Remote Identifiers (sub-TLV 4 defined in [RFC5307])
> >
> > exposes new security issues.
> 
> This was a question as opposed to an argument as I was trying to find all
> possible security issues to assist with adding a security considerations
> section.  I do see that path exposure is covered by the security
> considerations in other is-is documents.
> 
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > Interface addresses are associated with the parent L3 link and are already
> being advertised by IS-IS via existing TE extensions (e.g. RFC 5305, RFC 4205).
> > Link IDs for the L2 Links which are advertised are readily available today via
> network management tools.
> 
> Will these be referenced then in the security consideration section for
> completeness as it is still an issue?
> 
[Les:] I did not do this. It is a difficult model to follow when writing a document if one is required to explain everything that is NOT an issue.
The new statement in the draft says:

"No new security issues are introduced by the protocol extensions
   defined inn this document.  Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed
   in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]."

I believe this is both accurate and complete - and my comments above explain why.

   Les

> Thank you,
> Kathleen
> 
> >
> > 6)The shepherd's report and some reviewers have mentioned that there
> currently is no OSPF equivalent document.
> >
> > This statement is true, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the progress
> of this IS-IS draft.
> > It is often the case that equivalent drafts are written for OSPF and IS-IS
> because the same functionality may be required in deployments using either
> protocol. However we have never linked the progress of the two documents
> together - it is often the case that one document is written and proceeds
> before the other.
> >
> > I think it would be quite reasonable for OSPF to support equivalent
> functionality and it may be that someone - based on real deployment
> requirements (which is what has driven the writing of the IS-IS draft) - will
> write such a draft soon. But why this is deemed an issue for the progression
> of the IS-IS draft is a mystery to me.
> >
> > I do want to thank all the reviewers for their time and their diligence. I think
> the document is significantly improved based on your comments.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> >> internet- [email protected]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:45 PM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >> This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets of the IETF.
> >>
> >>         Title           : Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
> >>         Authors         : Les Ginsberg
> >>                           Ahmed Bashandy
> >>                           Clarence Filsfils
> >>                           Mohan Nanduri
> >>                           Ebben Aries
> >>       Filename        : draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
> >>       Pages           : 17
> >>       Date            : 2017-05-24
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>    There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS
> >>    operates is a Layer 2 interface bundle.  Existing IS-IS
> >>    advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the Layer
> >>    3 interface.  If entities external to IS-IS wish to control traffic
> >>    flows on the individual physical links which comprise the Layer 2
> >>    interface bundle link attribute information about the bundle members
> >>    is required.
> >>
> >>    This document introduces the ability for IS-IS to advertise the link
> >>    attributes of layer 2 (L2) bundle members.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles/
> >>
> >> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
> >>
> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> >>
> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Isis-wg mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg