Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

Joel Halpern Direct Mon, 21 Jun 2021 08:13:03 -0700

Les, I am missing something ion both your and Tom's comments. 5309didn't define the ifType. If you look at 5309, it has no IANAconsiderations at all.

Yes, this document should talk about 5309 as one of the cases that theifType simplifies. And it does.


This documents follows the lead of 8343 in defining this specific ifType.

Let's be clear. We were asked, quite reasoanbly, by the expert, when werequested the IANA code point, to please submit a document describinghow the dcode point would be used, rather than merely pointing at 5309and assuming everyone could guess correctly. (Guessing is not good forstandards.)

So we are trying to do so.

You seem to be objecting to our doing so.  Why?

If the working group really doesn't want a description, we can go away.We have the code point we felt was useful. But it seems much moreuseful to actually provide meaningful documentation.


Yours,
Joel



On 6/21/2021 10:58 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:

I am in complete agreement with the points Tom has made.

AFAICT, the only new content in this draft is Section 4 - the rest is either 
boilerplate or a repetition of text already present in RFC 5309 or RFC 8343.
Neither the Abstract nor the Introduction makes that clear.
The abstract actually claims to

     "defines point-to-point interface type"

which is both FALSE (already defined in RFC 5309) and incorrectly named - since the 
document is actually discussing "point-to-point operation over LAN".

Regarding the IANA section, it is clear that the draft is NOT creating new entries - 
rather it is modifying existing entries. And it isn’t modifying the code points, the 
names, or the descriptions - it only seeks to modify the references to include "this 
document".
But the text in the IANA section states otherwise:

" IANA need to update the "Interface Types(ifType)" registry...with the following 
status types"

I don’t know whether the content in Section 4 is sufficient to claim a 
reference, but if it is it should only be in addition to the existing reference.

    Les

-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:13 AM
To: tom petch <[email protected]>; Harold Liu
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

Tom, 5309 did not define the ifType.  Go read 5309.  You seem to have
gotten confused by the fact that the IANA entry given to 303 points to
5309.  That was done to have some reference (with the consent of the
experts).   What we are doing now is providing a better reference.  So
yes, this document defines how the ifType is defined.  With no criticism
of 5309, it does not define that, since it does not define the ifType.

We are explicit in this draft that one of the obvious uses for this
ifType is to trigger 5309 behavior.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/21/2021 4:41 AM, tom petch wrote:

From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Harold Liu

<[email protected]>

Sent: 21 June 2021 02:01

Hi Med and All:
         Thanks for your helpful comments, I have updated a new version 01 to

follow the comments;

         The main updating is:
         1. More clearly described the intend of this draft in the introduction;
         2. Change the reference style;
         3. Refactor the reference section to make it more reasonable;
         4. I haven't change "IANA Consideration" at the moment given there is

lots of discussion in this part and it is still up in the air, I will change 
this section
next update the document once this part is finalized;


<tp>
I still think that this is an unsatisfactory I-D and would oppose adoption in 
its

present form,


It is a question of veracity.  It claims to do what others have already done

and does so without reference, without acknowledgement.  Having the
same data defined in more than one place can only create confusion, in
future if not now.


This is a pattern and starts with the Abstract and continues throughout the

I-D.


Thus the Abstract claims 'this defines point-to-point interface type'.  No.

This type was defined in RFC5309 and you need to say that and to say what if
anything you are changing in that definition.  You should not reproduce text
from that RFC unless you have to and then you should make it clear you are
quoting.


You do the same with Figure 1.  This is a copy, may be accurate may be not,

it does not matter, from RFC8343 with no mention thereof.  You should not
be reproducing such text without a good reason and then you should make it
clear what is reproduced, from where and why.


And as I have said already, IANA Considerations is yet again claiming to do

what has already happened which can only confuse.  All that is needed as I
said in a separate note  is to ask IANA to update two references, nothing
more.


Tom Petch

         And I would like to share more background information for this internet

draft:

         As Joel mentioned, we requested and received an IF Type assignment

from IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet links several
weeks ago and the p2pOverLan type is already added to IANA registry now;

         During the discussion around the assignment we noticed a doc

describing why that is needed and how to use that would be helpful;

         For example, if no entry saying p2pOverLan layer over ethernet, the

management will suffer since lose the ability to get to the Ethernet-specific
management properties (Ethernet MIB or YANG model) via many tools; So
we propose this draft to define a complete p2pOverLan ifStack(Including
higher layer and lower layer);


Brs

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]

<[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>; draft-liu-lsr-

[email protected]

Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

Hi Joel, all,

Please find some quick comments to this draft, fwiw:

* pdf: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e8e7d1aa-b77ce948-

e8e79131-86073b36ea28-edbd778070bbec9a&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-41fd-
bf1b-56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-
Drafts-Reviews%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00-
rev%2520Med.pdf

* doc: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=938b5849-cc1060ab-

938b18d2-86073b36ea28-e0406a2599fa2a6d&q=1&e=d4a020c9-b337-41fd-
bf1b-56dcfaef1044&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-
Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00-
rev%2520Med.docx


Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
Envoyé : mercredi 16 juin 2021 22:47 À : Acee Lindem (acee)
<[email protected]>; [email protected] Objet : Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action:
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

This document (and the code point) are intended to be in line with
5309.
    I believe they are.  If we got it wrong, please help us fix it.

A reference would be reasonable to add.  (The IANA entry for the code
point does reference 5309.)

Thank you,
Joel



On 6/16/2021 4:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Hi Joel,

At first I wondered where this document should reside and then

decided that LSR is probably as good as any other place.


Can you guys check whether it is mostly in line with

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5309/ and comment as to whether it
should be referenced?


Thanks,
Acee


On 6/16/21, 11:10 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <lsr-

[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:


       Recently, Ericsson requested and received an IF Type

assignment from

       IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet

links.


       It was noted during the discussion around the assignment that

a document

       (eventually, we hope, an RFC) describing how to use that and

why we

       asked for it would be helpful.

       The below announcement is that draft.  We would like to work

with the

       community to improve and clarify teh draft.

       Thank you,
       Joel


       -------- Forwarded Message --------
       Subject: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
       Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:00:04 -0700
       From: [email protected]
       Reply-To: [email protected]
       To: [email protected]


       A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-

Drafts

       directories.


                Title           : Interface Stack Table Definition

for Point to

       Point (P2P) Interface over LAN
                Authors         : Daiying Liu
                                  Joel Halpern
                                  Congjie Zhang
              Filename        : draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
              Pages           : 7
              Date            : 2021-06-16

       Abstract:
           The point-to-point circuit type is one of the mainly used

circuit

           types in link state routing protocol.  It is important to

identify

           the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies,

flooding link

           state database packets, and monitor the link state.  This

document

           defines point-to-point interface type and relevant stack

tables to

           provide benefit for operation, maintenance and

statistics.



       The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan/

       There is also an htmlized version available at:
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-lsr-

p2poverlan-00



       Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
       ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


       _______________________________________________
       I-D-Announce mailing list
       [email protected]
       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
       Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
       or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

       _______________________________________________
       Lsr mailing list
       [email protected]
       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
_____


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations

confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.


This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged

information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed,
used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete

this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been

modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt

Reply via email to