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:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 4:19 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; gen-...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe....@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> 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:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM
> >> To: gen-...@ietf.org
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe....@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org;
> >> i...@ietf.org
> >> 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.
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
