Re-, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> > Envoyé : jeudi 2 juin 2022 15:31 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; > The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk > Objet : Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm- > 18: (with COMMENT) > > Merci, Med, for your fast reply as usual. > > Remaining comments are marked with EV> below but none were or are > blocking the publication. > > Regards > > -éric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > Date: Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 15:21 > To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-l...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg- > l...@ietf.org>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org" <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>, > "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "adr...@olddog.co.uk" > <adr...@olddog.co.uk> > Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm- > 18: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Éric, > > Many thanks for the review. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > > Envoyé : jeudi 2 juin 2022 11:37 > > À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l...@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org; > > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; adr...@olddog.co.uk > > Objet : Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg- > l2nm-18: > > (with COMMENT) > > > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling- > ballot- > > positions/ > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > > positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be > found > > here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > > ---- > > COMMENT: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > > ---- > > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, review of # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, > review of > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18 CC @evyncke > > > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It solves a > common > > and important > > issue while keeping backward compatibility. > > > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but > replies > > would be > > appreciated even if only for my own education), and some > nits. > > > > Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for the shepherd's write-up > > including the WG > > consensus and the intended status. > > > > The use of IANA-maintained YANG modules looks attractive to > me. > > > > [Med] Thanks. > > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > [Med] Definitely. > > > > > Regards, > > > > -éric > > > > ## COMMENTS > > > > ### Set of L2VPN technologies > > > > Just wondering how extensible this model is ? I.e., the L2 > cross- > > connect of RFC > > 8986 is not included, any reason why ? How easy would it be > to > > extend this > > model to also include RFC 8986 ? > > [Med] ... because that is local to the PE. See of example the > discussion in RFC4667. Please note that this spec is about a > network model, not a device model. Some device-specific features > can be handled directly in the device models, not exposed network- > wide to a controller. That's said, if such a feature is needed in > the L2NM, augments can be considered at the "connection" level > with a condition on the service type, for example. > > EV> ack > > > > ### Section 2 > > ``` > > The corresponding YANG module can be used by > > a service orchestrator to request a VPN service to a > network > > controller or to expose the list of active L2VPN > services. > > ``` > > Does this mean that state information (e.g., counters) are > not > > included ? > > [Med] This is covered as per the following: > > The L2NM ('ietf-l2vpn-ntw', Section 8.4) is used to manage > L2VPNs > within a service provider network. In particular, the > 'ietf-l2vpn- > ntw' module can be used to create, modify, delete and > retrieve L2VPN > services in a network controller. > > EV> still missing status/OAM though [Med] I was assuming this is covered as part of "manage" (FCAPS if you will). Will add some text to make your point more explicit. > > > Actually, sections 7.3 & 7.6.3 mention some status & OAM > support > > so suggest > > adding status & OAM to the above text. > > > > ### Section 6 > > > > While I understand that "ethernet" is used in a broad > concept > > (i.e., also > > covering Wi-Fi), I find the use of 'ethernet' a little > restrictive > > as layer-2 > > VPN could exist in a near future with technologies that are > not > > IEEE 802.3 > > based (e.g., some IoT networks or the good old frame relay). > Alas, > > probably too > > late to change anything. > > > > [Med] I prefer to not touch this at this stage. > > > ### Section 7.4 > > > > ``` > > 'svc-mtu': Is the service MTU for an L2VPN service (i.e., > Layer > > 2 > > MTU including L2 frame header/tail). It is also known > as > > the > > maximum transmission unit or maximum frame size. > > ``` > > Does it include CRC and/or preamble ? > > [Med] The preamble is not included. > > EV> worth mentioning ? [Med] I think this is explicitly covered by "L2 frame hader/trailer". Will think about this. > > It would be nice also to > > mention the unit > > of this metric. > > [Med] Good catch. Fixed this and also for some other MTU- > related data nodes. Thanks. > > > > > Same question in the 'mtu' in section 7.6.4. > > [Med] ACK. > > > > > ### Section 8.4 > > > > Missing "units" in "svc-mtu'. > > [Med] Fixed. > > > > > Is 300 msec a valid default aging timer for a MAC address ? > This > > seems really > > short. > > [Med] We do inherit this value from RFC8466, fwiw. This one is > OK. The one I' unhappy with is the default of the "speed" (10 > mbps)!! but we preferred to maintain it as such to ease the > mapping between the L2SM (RFC8466) and the L2NM. > > EV> LoL for 10 Mbps ;-) and it is sad for the 300 msec > > > > > ### Sections A.2 & A.3 > > > > Thanks for providing an IPv6 example ;-) > > [Med] :-) > > > > > ## NITS > > > > ### MAC is uppercase > > > > I noticed at least one occurence of 'mac' in lower case. > > [Med] Thanks. Fixed. > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
