-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 8:13 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; tom petch
<[email protected]>; Harold Liu
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
Les, I am missing something ion both your and Tom's comments. 5309
didn't define the ifType. If you look at 5309, it has no IANA
considerations at all.
Yes, this document should talk about 5309 as one of the cases that the
ifType 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 we
requested the IANA code point, to please submit a document describing
how the dcode point would be used, rather than merely pointing at 5309
and assuming everyone could guess correctly. (Guessing is not good for
standards.)
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 more
useful 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
