Hi Magnus, sounds good, I'll update that text as soon the publication window reopens.
Thanks! Fabio On 7/14/20, 2:45 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, From my perspective the below is still a normative reference formulation. You have to read the reference to be able to determine if you SHOULD follow them or not. Maybe adopting the paragraph which draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines proposes to update RFC 3819 with: By following the guidelines in [RFCXXXX], subnetwork designers can enable a layer-2 protocol to participate in congestion control without dropping packets via propagation of explicit congestion notification (ECN [RFC3168]) to receivers. Into the below text can make it inforamtive. Keeping in mind the recommendation above, new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, should be designed for explicit congestion signals to propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. Then the IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the transport layer (L4). Such new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from [RFC6040]. Following the guidelines in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines], designers of new LISP-GPE encapsualtions can enable LISP GPE and the encapsulated payload to participate in congestion control without dropping packets via propagation of explicit congestion notification (ECN [RFC3168]) to receivers. Please word smith. I still think this is borde line case for a informative reference but at least it is not directly part of an RFC 2119 language sentence. Cheers Magnus On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 19:04 +0000, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > Magnus, > here is how we modified the latest version of the draft trying to reflect your > concerns, and to deal with the status of the ecn-encap-guidelines draft. > > 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality > > LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality > and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. > As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or > within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). > An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion > by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data > traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. > > Keeping in mind the recommendation above, new encapsulated payloads, > when registered with LISP-GPE, should be designed for explicit > congestion signals to propagate consistently from lower layer > protocols into IP. Then the IP internetwork layer can act as a > portability layer to carry congestion notification from non-IP-aware > congested nodes up to the transport layer (L4). Such new > encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be > accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from [RFC6040] and SHOULD > follow the guidelines defined in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]. > > > Thanks, > Fabio > > On 7/10/20, 6:54 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 13:57 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > Magnus, while it is possible we will still get hold ups on the LISP > > documents, I would really prefer to avoid creating a normative > > dependency on something that at best is 6 months away. Particularly > > since the TSVWG has not cared enough to maintain the document. > > I can understand that. So then think you need to figure out what > requirements > from that document that you thought was relevant to say that they MUST be > included in a future specification and include them in the GPE document so > that > the ecn-encap-guidelines would only be inforamtional reference. > > Cheers > > Magnus > > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 7/9/2020 1:50 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > No, RFC 3819 is not a good replacement for the draft. I would note > that only > > > a > > > minor part of RFC 3819 is updated by draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap- > guidelines. > > > > > > So I contacted the TSVWG chairs to try to get an update on when the > document > > > could be ready. The WG has not abandonded it. Actually I found an > updated > > > version from March that simply failed to make it into the public > archive at > > > that > > > point. > > > > > > I will also note that the document has gone through one WG last call > and > > > appear > > > to be in descent shape. The only issue is that the main author been > busy > > > with > > > L4S that is a hot topic in TSVWG. > > > > > > We have requested an estimate for an update from Bob Briscoe so that > we can > > > get > > > this document going forward. > > > > > > So it might be possible to get this document approved before the end > of the > > > year. > > > > > > As an alternativ there might be possible that you can reformulate the > > > sentence > > > so that the high level requirement that the reader is expected to > derive is > > > expressed in your document, and then you can get to a state where the > > > reference > > > would only be informative? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 16:51 +0000, Fabio Maino (fmaino) wrote: > > > > Hi Magnus, thanks for your comments. > > > > > > > > Wrt I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines it turns out that the draft > is > > > > expired, so making it normative might not be an option. > > > > > > > > Since it is meant to replace RFC3819, should we refer to RFC3819 > instead? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Fabio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/20, 5:43 AM, "Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker" < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > > > > draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-17: No Objection > > > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to all > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut > > > > this > > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > here: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > > > - > > > > COMMENT: > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > > > - > > > > > > > > Section 4.2: > > > > > > > > To me it looks like this is normative reference: > > > > > > > > Such new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP- > > > > GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from > > > > [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. > > > > > > > > Section 4.3.1: > > > > > > > > Thanks for writing relevant guidance on how to mitigate the > risks > > > > with > > > > zero > > > > checksum. Especially the one on traffic separation from other > traffic > > > > so > > > > that > > > > it can be caught on the boundaries of the network to prevent > the risk > > > > to > > > > other > > > > networks from corrupted traffic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Networks, Ericsson Research > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Networks, Ericsson Research ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
