Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
> > > We can add a note about it you think this helps. Thank you. > > > > If the document assumes additions to RFC 8177, this must be noted, IMHO. > > [[Med]] Added this NEW text: > > This version of the L3NM assumes that TCP-AO specific parameters > are preconfigured as part of the key-chain that is referenced in > the L3NM. No assumption is made about how such a key-chain is > pre-configured. However, the structure of the key-chain should > cover data nodes beyond those in [RFC8177], mainly SendID and > RecvID (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]). > > Do we need to say more? Thanks. That would work for me. That sort of assumption is IMHO far from being ideal, but it may be good enough to move forward. Michael ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Martin , The proposed changes to echo the clarification provided below and the discussion with Michael (thanks) are now implemented in a new revision: URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-12.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-12 Please me know if you still have any comment. Thank you. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 09:03 > À : Martin Duke ; The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Martin, > > Thank you for the review. > > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the > ACK section of that document). > > The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in draft- > ietf-idr-bgp-model: > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm > > | | | +--rw (option)? > | | |+--:(tcp-ao) > | | || +--rw enable-tcp-ao? boolean > | | || +--rw ao-keychain?key-chain:key-chain-ref > > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > | | | +--rw (option)? > | | | +--:(ao) > | | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > | | | | +--rw ao-keychain? > | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref > > We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network > model, not a device model. A network model does not aim to control every > parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other than > enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we didn't > identify a need to control and customize at the network service level > the data nodes in draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp: > > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > > These optional nodes can be part of a local profile that can be directly > manipulated at the device module (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model). > > We can make these changes, though: > > s/tcp-ao/ao > s/enable-tcp-ao/enable-ao > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Martin Duke via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] Envoyé : > > dimanche 19 septembre 2021 19:55 À : The IESG Cc : > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; adr...@olddog.co.uk Objet : > > Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: Discuss > > > > 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ > > > > > > > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > -- > > > > (7.6.3) Is there a reason the TCP-AO model in this draft is different > > from the one in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11? That draft is using a > > model developed in the TCPM WG (draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp) specifically > > for that purpose. > > > > If there is no compelling requirement for something different, or the > > TCPM modelling work can be stretched to cover this use case as well, > > it would be far better than rolling a totally separate TCP YANG model > here. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Michael, Thank you for the follow-up. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > Envoyé : mercredi 22 septembre 2021 17:38 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Martin > Duke ; The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Med, > > Thanks for the useful references. More inline. > > > -Original Message- > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:56 PM > > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > > ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -Message d'origine- > > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 12:05 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed > > > INNOV/NET > > ; Martin > > > Duke ; The IESG Cc : > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > cha...@ietf.org Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Hi Med, > > > > > > What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that > > > case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO > > > configuration. > > > > > > However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs > > > and the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with > > > the CEs, no? > > > > [[Med]] Agree. > > > > If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive- > > > id" must be part of L3NM model, no? > > > > [[Med]] Not necessarily. See below. > > > > If not, how would the TCP-AO > > > provisioning on CEs and PEs work? > > > > [[Med]] The assumption we had for this version of the module is that > > send-id and recv-id are pre-configured while only the key reference is > > manipulated in the L3NM. Some of the implementations separate the > > TCP-AO configuration from the invocation in context of a particular > > protocol, e.g., > > > > * > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/g > > eneral/release-notes/20.3/infocus-topicmaps/tcp-authentication-option- > > map-infocus.html > > * https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/ncs5500/bgp/72x/b-bgp- > > cg-ncs5500-72x/implementing-master-key-tuple- > > configuration.html#id_77361 > > Good references. As far as I can see, in those two cases the send-id and > recv-id are modelled in the key-chain and therefore configurable as part > of the key-chain. With such a key-chain, your assumption would work. [[Med]] Great. > > However, draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 references to the key-chain from > RFC 8177. Unlike in those two previous examples, I don't understand how > one would encode send-id and recv-id in the RFC 8177 model. > > So, my reading is that draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 assumes that the > referenced key-chain includes additional entries beyond RFC 8177, such > as send-id and recv-id. > > If that assumption is correct, IMHO the document draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > l3nm has to highlight that additions to the key-chain model beyond RFC > 8177 may be required for TCP-AO to work. [[Med]] Agree. > > > We can add a note about it you think this helps. Thank you. > > If the document assumes additions to RFC 8177, this must be noted, IMHO. [[Med]] Added this NEW text: This version of the L3NM assumes that TCP-AO specific parameters are preconfigured as part of the key-chain that is referenced in the L3NM. No assumption is made about how such a key-chain is pre-configured. However, the structure of the key-chain should cover data nodes beyond those in [RFC8177], mainly SendID and RecvID (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]). Do we need to say more? Thanks. > > Of course, an alternative would be just to import draft-ietf-tcpm-yang- > tcp, which models the relevant entries, but that will be your call. [[Med]] Thanks, but I prefer to not import this module for this version. This can be done in future augmentations when hopefully tcp-yang will be published as an
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
> -Original Message- > From: Qin Wu > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:25 PM > To: Scharf, Michael ; > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > I assume many of us don't understand the difference between device model > and network model, how network model is mapped down to device level > models. > See figure 5 of RFC8969, In order to deliver L3VPN service, the L3NM defined > configuration or abstraction should be further decomposed into a set of > detailed configuration parameters of device model such as BGP, Network > Instance, QoS, key chain, etc > which specify detailed protocol specific parameters such as BGP or feature > specific parameters such as key chain. The challenge is that the key chain model referenced by draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm may not contain the two parameters needed for TCP-AO. IMHO we are here not discussing model mapping in general, but how to ensure that TCP-AO can work with the specific key chain model referenced in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm. > TCP-AO will be part of BGP configuration parameters. L3NM focus on specify > which functionality needs to be invoked such as TCP-AO, BGP model will > document details of configuration parameters which include TCP-AO. L3NM models quite a bit of the detailed BGP configuration already. So, one may wonder why a subset of relevant BGP parameters is included in L3NM, but two other TCP-AO-related parameters that also have to be configured are omitted in the L3NM model, or in the key-chain it uses. And these two TCP-AO parameters are specifically relevant since these two identifiers may need to be set consistently with the BGP neighbor, i.e., templates or other forms of auto-provisioning may not work - unless I miss something. > Another choice is L3NM defined configuration will be decomposed into > example-network-dev...@2017-03-13.yang defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg- > device-model, details of configuration related to TCP-AO will be specified in > the example-network-dev...@2017-03-13.yang. > Therefore you can see different vendors may come up with different > mapping solution or decomposition. My understanding is that we don't discuss device models and mapping to vendor-specific models in this thread. Michael > Hope this clarifies. > > -Qin > -邮件原件- > 发件人: Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > 发送时间: 2021年9月23日 17:42 > 收件人: Qin Wu ; > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > 主题: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi Qin, > > I believe that in the specific case of "send-id" and "recv-id", the actual > issue is > that L3NM references to the RFC 8177 model that could theoretically include > the required information. But RFC 8177 may have a gap there. > > And since these values must be set consistently with the router a PE > connects to, IMHO a default value or template for determining the device > configuration may not work. As I have already said, for a lot of _other_ > device configuration I can see how templates or the like would fill device > configuration gaps in an abstract network model. > > But for TCP-AO "send-id" and "recv-id", I think the L3NM document needs to > explain where the actual values provisioned to each PE would come from. I > don't understand how the PE could guess the correct value. > > Granted, TCP-AO may be a minor detail of the overall L3NM model - but this > kind of detail may be sort of a litmus test for how well network-level > abstractions actually work. > > Michael > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Qin Wu > > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:05 AM > > To: Scharf, Michael ; > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; > > The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Hi, Michael, Med and all: > > I tend to agree with Med we should have a clear distinction between > > device level configuration and network level abstraction. > > Device level configuration will provide complete set of TCP AO > > properties configuration to make TCP AO functionality work while > > network level abstraction should focus on network layers configuration > > **across multiple devices **or *
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
I assume many of us don't understand the difference between device model and network model, how network model is mapped down to device level models. See figure 5 of RFC8969, In order to deliver L3VPN service, the L3NM defined configuration or abstraction should be further decomposed into a set of detailed configuration parameters of device model such as BGP, Network Instance, QoS, key chain, etc which specify detailed protocol specific parameters such as BGP or feature specific parameters such as key chain. TCP-AO will be part of BGP configuration parameters. L3NM focus on specify which functionality needs to be invoked such as TCP-AO, BGP model will document details of configuration parameters which include TCP-AO. Another choice is L3NM defined configuration will be decomposed into example-network-dev...@2017-03-13.yang defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model, details of configuration related to TCP-AO will be specified in the example-network-dev...@2017-03-13.yang. Therefore you can see different vendors may come up with different mapping solution or decomposition. Hope this clarifies. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] 发送时间: 2021年9月23日 17:42 收件人: Qin Wu ; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke ; The IESG 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 主题: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) Hi Qin, I believe that in the specific case of "send-id" and "recv-id", the actual issue is that L3NM references to the RFC 8177 model that could theoretically include the required information. But RFC 8177 may have a gap there. And since these values must be set consistently with the router a PE connects to, IMHO a default value or template for determining the device configuration may not work. As I have already said, for a lot of _other_ device configuration I can see how templates or the like would fill device configuration gaps in an abstract network model. But for TCP-AO "send-id" and "recv-id", I think the L3NM document needs to explain where the actual values provisioned to each PE would come from. I don't understand how the PE could guess the correct value. Granted, TCP-AO may be a minor detail of the overall L3NM model - but this kind of detail may be sort of a litmus test for how well network-level abstractions actually work. Michael > -Original Message- > From: Qin Wu > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:05 AM > To: Scharf, Michael ; > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke ; > The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi, Michael, Med and all: > I tend to agree with Med we should have a clear distinction between > device level configuration and network level abstraction. > Device level configuration will provide complete set of TCP AO > properties configuration to make TCP AO functionality work while > network level abstraction should focus on network layers configuration > **across multiple devices **or **specifying which functionality need > to be invoked**. Sometimes it is hard to find the clear boundary, or > debatable to have or not have some parameters. But If we propose to > add send-id and recv-id to L3NM, I am arguing why not add MAC > algorithm, KDF, why not add other TCP connection parameters? If we > look for adding complete set of TCP AO configuration in the > draft-ietf-tcpm- yang-tcp, I think maybe meta model defined in > draft-ietf-rtgwg-device- model is a better choice. > > -Qin > -邮件原件- > 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Scharf, Michael > 发送时间: 2021年9月22日 23:38 > 收件人: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm- > 11: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Med, > > Thanks for the useful references. More inline. > > > -Original Message- > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:56 PM > > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > > ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -Message d'origine- > > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > > Envoyé : lundi 20
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Qin, I believe that in the specific case of "send-id" and "recv-id", the actual issue is that L3NM references to the RFC 8177 model that could theoretically include the required information. But RFC 8177 may have a gap there. And since these values must be set consistently with the router a PE connects to, IMHO a default value or template for determining the device configuration may not work. As I have already said, for a lot of _other_ device configuration I can see how templates or the like would fill device configuration gaps in an abstract network model. But for TCP-AO "send-id" and "recv-id", I think the L3NM document needs to explain where the actual values provisioned to each PE would come from. I don't understand how the PE could guess the correct value. Granted, TCP-AO may be a minor detail of the overall L3NM model - but this kind of detail may be sort of a litmus test for how well network-level abstractions actually work. Michael > -Original Message- > From: Qin Wu > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 11:05 AM > To: Scharf, Michael ; > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi, Michael, Med and all: > I tend to agree with Med we should have a clear distinction between device > level configuration and network level abstraction. > Device level configuration will provide complete set of TCP AO properties > configuration to make TCP AO functionality work while network level > abstraction should focus on > network layers configuration **across multiple devices **or **specifying > which functionality need to be invoked**. Sometimes it is hard to find the > clear boundary, or debatable to have or not have some parameters. But If > we propose to add send-id and recv-id to L3NM, I am arguing why not add > MAC algorithm, KDF, why not add other TCP connection parameters? If we > look for adding complete set of TCP AO configuration in the draft-ietf-tcpm- > yang-tcp, I think maybe meta model defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg-device- > model is a better choice. > > -Qin > -邮件原件- > 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Scharf, Michael > 发送时间: 2021年9月22日 23:38 > 收件人: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm- > 11: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Med, > > Thanks for the useful references. More inline. > > > -Original Message- > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:56 PM > > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > > ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -Message d'origine- > > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 12:05 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed > > > INNOV/NET > > ; Martin > > > Duke ; The IESG Cc : > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > cha...@ietf.org Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Hi Med, > > > > > > What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that > > > case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO > > > configuration. > > > > > > However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs > > > and the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with > > > the CEs, no? > > > > [[Med]] Agree. > > > > If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive- > > > id" must be part of L3NM model, no? > > > > [[Med]] Not necessarily. See below. > > > > If not, how would the TCP-AO > > > provisioning on CEs and PEs work? > > > > [[Med]] The assumption we had for this version of the module is that > > send-id and recv-id are pre-configured while only the key reference is > > manipulated in the L3NM. Some of the implementations separate the > > TCP-AO configuration from the invocation in context of a
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi, Michael, Med and all: I tend to agree with Med we should have a clear distinction between device level configuration and network level abstraction. Device level configuration will provide complete set of TCP AO properties configuration to make TCP AO functionality work while network level abstraction should focus on network layers configuration **across multiple devices **or **specifying which functionality need to be invoked**. Sometimes it is hard to find the clear boundary, or debatable to have or not have some parameters. But If we propose to add send-id and recv-id to L3NM, I am arguing why not add MAC algorithm, KDF, why not add other TCP connection parameters? If we look for adding complete set of TCP AO configuration in the draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp, I think maybe meta model defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model is a better choice. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Scharf, Michael 发送时间: 2021年9月22日 23:38 收件人: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Martin Duke ; The IESG 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) Hi Med, Thanks for the useful references. More inline. > -Original Message- > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:56 PM > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi Michael, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 12:05 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed > > INNOV/NET > ; Martin > > Duke ; The IESG Cc : > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Med, > > > > What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that > > case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO > > configuration. > > > > However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs > > and the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with > > the CEs, no? > > [[Med]] Agree. > > If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive- > > id" must be part of L3NM model, no? > > [[Med]] Not necessarily. See below. > > If not, how would the TCP-AO > > provisioning on CEs and PEs work? > > [[Med]] The assumption we had for this version of the module is that > send-id and recv-id are pre-configured while only the key reference is > manipulated in the L3NM. Some of the implementations separate the > TCP-AO configuration from the invocation in context of a particular > protocol, e.g., > > * > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/g > eneral/release-notes/20.3/infocus-topicmaps/tcp-authentication-option- > map-infocus.html > * https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/ncs5500/bgp/72x/b-bgp- > cg-ncs5500-72x/implementing-master-key-tuple- > configuration.html#id_77361 Good references. As far as I can see, in those two cases the send-id and recv-id are modelled in the key-chain and therefore configurable as part of the key-chain. With such a key-chain, your assumption would work. However, draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 references to the key-chain from RFC 8177. Unlike in those two previous examples, I don't understand how one would encode send-id and recv-id in the RFC 8177 model. So, my reading is that draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 assumes that the referenced key-chain includes additional entries beyond RFC 8177, such as send-id and recv-id. If that assumption is correct, IMHO the document draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm has to highlight that additions to the key-chain model beyond RFC 8177 may be required for TCP-AO to work. > We can add a note about it you think this helps. Thank you. If the document assumes additions to RFC 8177, this must be noted, IMHO. Of course, an alternative would be just to import draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp, which models the relevant entries, but that will be your call. Michael > > > > > In a nutshell, I don't understand the argument "send-id and > > receive-id are not needed in L3NM because they are not included in > > L3SM". Also, that generic argument would apply to _a lot_ of network > > level configuration that is not part of L3SM. > > > > BTW,
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Med, Thanks for the useful references. More inline. > -Original Message- > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:56 PM > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi Michael, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 12:05 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > ; Martin > > Duke ; The IESG > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Med, > > > > What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that > > case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO > > configuration. > > > > However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs and > > the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with the CEs, > > no? > > [[Med]] Agree. > > If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive- > > id" must be part of L3NM model, no? > > [[Med]] Not necessarily. See below. > > If not, how would the TCP-AO > > provisioning on CEs and PEs work? > > [[Med]] The assumption we had for this version of the module is that send-id > and recv-id are pre-configured while only the key reference is manipulated in > the L3NM. Some of the implementations separate the TCP-AO configuration > from the invocation in context of a particular protocol, e.g., > > * > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/g > eneral/release-notes/20.3/infocus-topicmaps/tcp-authentication-option- > map-infocus.html > * https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/ncs5500/bgp/72x/b-bgp- > cg-ncs5500-72x/implementing-master-key-tuple- > configuration.html#id_77361 Good references. As far as I can see, in those two cases the send-id and recv-id are modelled in the key-chain and therefore configurable as part of the key-chain. With such a key-chain, your assumption would work. However, draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 references to the key-chain from RFC 8177. Unlike in those two previous examples, I don't understand how one would encode send-id and recv-id in the RFC 8177 model. So, my reading is that draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11 assumes that the referenced key-chain includes additional entries beyond RFC 8177, such as send-id and recv-id. If that assumption is correct, IMHO the document draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm has to highlight that additions to the key-chain model beyond RFC 8177 may be required for TCP-AO to work. > We can add a note about it you think this helps. Thank you. If the document assumes additions to RFC 8177, this must be noted, IMHO. Of course, an alternative would be just to import draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp, which models the relevant entries, but that will be your call. Michael > > > > > In a nutshell, I don't understand the argument "send-id and receive-id > > are not needed in L3NM because they are not included in L3SM". Also, > > that generic argument would apply to _a lot_ of network level > > configuration that is not part of L3SM. > > > > BTW, I agree that augmentation will be important for many parameters, > > but IMHO you have to ensure that the L3NM model includes all base > > parameters that are required for connectivity. At least for TCP-AO, I > > don't understand your specific choice in L3NM so far. > > > > Best regards > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:42 AM > > > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > > > ; The IESG > > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > cha...@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > > (with > > > DISCUSS) > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > The L3NM focuses on the network side (that is, PEs). The module is > > > typically triggered by an L3SM (where the values may be agreed with a > > customer). > > > FYI, the L3SM (RFC8299) does not support the capability to customize > > > TCP- AO. > > >
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Michael, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 12:05 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Martin > Duke ; The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Med, > > What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that > case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO > configuration. > > However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs and > the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with the CEs, > no? [[Med]] Agree. If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive- > id" must be part of L3NM model, no? [[Med]] Not necessarily. See below. If not, how would the TCP-AO > provisioning on CEs and PEs work? [[Med]] The assumption we had for this version of the module is that send-id and recv-id are pre-configured while only the key reference is manipulated in the L3NM. Some of the implementations separate the TCP-AO configuration from the invocation in context of a particular protocol, e.g., * https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/general/release-notes/20.3/infocus-topicmaps/tcp-authentication-option-map-infocus.html * https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/ncs5500/bgp/72x/b-bgp-cg-ncs5500-72x/implementing-master-key-tuple-configuration.html#id_77361 We can add a note about it you think this helps. Thank you. > > In a nutshell, I don't understand the argument "send-id and receive-id > are not needed in L3NM because they are not included in L3SM". Also, > that generic argument would apply to _a lot_ of network level > configuration that is not part of L3SM. > > BTW, I agree that augmentation will be important for many parameters, > but IMHO you have to ensure that the L3NM model includes all base > parameters that are required for connectivity. At least for TCP-AO, I > don't understand your specific choice in L3NM so far. > > Best regards > > Michael > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:42 AM > > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > > ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > The L3NM focuses on the network side (that is, PEs). The module is > > typically triggered by an L3SM (where the values may be agreed with a > customer). > > FYI, the L3SM (RFC8299) does not support the capability to customize > > TCP- AO. > > > > When the L3SM (RFC8299) is augmented in the future to support send-id > > and recv-id, then the L3NM can be easily augmented to pass them to > PEs. > > > > What is really important is that we have a provision for such augment > > to happen. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine- > > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 11:10 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed > > > INNOV/NET > > ; Martin > > > Duke ; The IESG Cc : > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > cha...@ietf.org Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Chiming in as author of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp ... > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of > > > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:03 AM > > > > To: Martin Duke ; The IESG > > > > > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > > cha...@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on > > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > > > > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in > > > > the ACK section of that document). > > > > > > > > The structure in draft-ietf-o
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Med, What happens if PEs and CEs are both under operator control? In that case, the customer-facing L3SM model may not need any TCP-AO configuration. However, in that case, TCP-AO may need to be configured on the PEs and the "send-id" and "receive-id" values must be consistent with the CEs, no? If the PE configuration is done by L3NM, the "send-id" and "receive-id" must be part of L3NM model, no? If not, how would the TCP-AO provisioning on CEs and PEs work? In a nutshell, I don't understand the argument "send-id and receive-id are not needed in L3NM because they are not included in L3SM". Also, that generic argument would apply to _a lot_ of network level configuration that is not part of L3SM. BTW, I agree that augmentation will be important for many parameters, but IMHO you have to ensure that the L3NM model includes all base parameters that are required for connectivity. At least for TCP-AO, I don't understand your specific choice in L3NM so far. Best regards Michael > -Original Message- > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:42 AM > To: Scharf, Michael ; Martin Duke > ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > Hi Michael, > > The L3NM focuses on the network side (that is, PEs). The module is typically > triggered by an L3SM (where the values may be agreed with a customer). > FYI, the L3SM (RFC8299) does not support the capability to customize TCP- > AO. > > When the L3SM (RFC8299) is augmented in the future to support send-id and > recv-id, then the L3NM can be easily augmented to pass them to PEs. > > What is really important is that we have a provision for such augment to > happen. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 11:10 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > ; Martin > > Duke ; The IESG > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > > (with DISCUSS) > > > > Chiming in as author of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp ... > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of > > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:03 AM > > > To: Martin Duke ; The IESG > > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > > cha...@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > > > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the > > > ACK section of that document). > > > > > > The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in > > > draft-ietf- > > > idr-bgp-model: > > > > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm > > > > > > | | | +--rw (option)? > > > | | |+--:(tcp-ao) > > > | | || +--rw enable-tcp-ao? boolean > > > | | || +--rw ao-keychain?key-chain:key-chain- > > ref > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > > > > > | | | +--rw (option)? > > > | | | +--:(ao) > > > | | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean > > > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > > > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > > > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > > > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > > > | | | | +--rw ao-keychain? > > > | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref > > > > > > We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network > > > model, not a device model. A network model does not aim to control > > > every parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other > > > than enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we > > > didn't identify a need to control and customize at the network service > > > level the data nodes in > > > draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp: > > > > > > | | | |
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Michael, The L3NM focuses on the network side (that is, PEs). The module is typically triggered by an L3SM (where the values may be agreed with a customer). FYI, the L3SM (RFC8299) does not support the capability to customize TCP-AO. When the L3SM (RFC8299) is augmented in the future to support send-id and recv-id, then the L3NM can be easily augmented to pass them to PEs. What is really important is that we have a provision for such augment to happen. Thank you. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Scharf, Michael [mailto:michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de] > Envoyé : lundi 20 septembre 2021 11:10 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Martin > Duke ; The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Objet : RE: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: > (with DISCUSS) > > Chiming in as author of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp ... > > > -Original Message- > > From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:03 AM > > To: Martin Duke ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the > > ACK section of that document). > > > > The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in > > draft-ietf- > > idr-bgp-model: > > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm > > > > | | | +--rw (option)? > > | | |+--:(tcp-ao) > > | | || +--rw enable-tcp-ao? boolean > > | | || +--rw ao-keychain?key-chain:key-chain- > ref > > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > > > | | | +--rw (option)? > > | | | +--:(ao) > > | | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean > > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > > | | | | +--rw ao-keychain? > > | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref > > > > We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network > > model, not a device model. A network model does not aim to control > > every parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other > > than enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we > > didn't identify a need to control and customize at the network service > > level the data nodes in > > draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp: > > > > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > > > > These optional nodes can be part of a local profile that can be > > directly manipulated at the device module (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model). > > It is always an interesting (and pretty fundamental) question what > device parameters can indeed be abstracted in a network model. My > personal (well, somewhat dated) experience is that different operators > have very different preferences what parameters to include in a network > model. Careful reasoning may be required for any omission of a device > parameter. > > In this specific case, I don't fully understand how VPN provisioning via > the network level model would pick the values for "send-id" and "recv- > id"? Those parameters need to be configured consistently on both > endpoints of the TCP-AO connection, right? What happens if the network > model draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm only configures one of the two TCP-AO > endpoints? > > So, why can "send-id" and "recv-id" be removed? > > > We can make these changes, though: > > > > s/tcp-ao/ao > > s/enable-tcp-ao/enable-ao > > It certainly makes sense to use at least consistent naming in different > IETF models, but unless there is a good reason to remove "send-id" and > "recv-id", you could just directly import the grouping to ensure > consistency... > > Michael > > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -Message d'origine- > > > De : Martin Duke vi
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Chiming in as author of draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp ... > -Original Message- > From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:03 AM > To: Martin Duke ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm- > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Martin, > > Thank you for the review. > > I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the ACK > section of that document). > > The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in draft-ietf- > idr-bgp-model: > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm > > | | | +--rw (option)? > | | |+--:(tcp-ao) > | | || +--rw enable-tcp-ao? boolean > | | || +--rw ao-keychain?key-chain:key-chain-ref > > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > | | | +--rw (option)? > | | | +--:(ao) > | | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > | | | | +--rw ao-keychain? > | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref > > We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network model, > not a device model. A network model does not aim to control every > parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other than > enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we didn't identify a > need to control and customize at the network service level the data nodes in > draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp: > > | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 > | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean > | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean > > These optional nodes can be part of a local profile that can be directly > manipulated at the device module (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model). It is always an interesting (and pretty fundamental) question what device parameters can indeed be abstracted in a network model. My personal (well, somewhat dated) experience is that different operators have very different preferences what parameters to include in a network model. Careful reasoning may be required for any omission of a device parameter. In this specific case, I don't fully understand how VPN provisioning via the network level model would pick the values for "send-id" and "recv-id"? Those parameters need to be configured consistently on both endpoints of the TCP-AO connection, right? What happens if the network model draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm only configures one of the two TCP-AO endpoints? So, why can "send-id" and "recv-id" be removed? > We can make these changes, though: > > s/tcp-ao/ao > s/enable-tcp-ao/enable-ao It certainly makes sense to use at least consistent naming in different IETF models, but unless there is a good reason to remove "send-id" and "recv-id", you could just directly import the grouping to ensure consistency... Michael > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Martin Duke via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > > Envoyé : dimanche 19 septembre 2021 19:55 > > À : The IESG > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; adr...@olddog.co.uk > > Objet : Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: Discuss > > > > 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ > > > > > > > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > -- > > > > (7.6.3) Is there a reason the
Re: [OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Martin, Thank you for the review. I'm very familiar with draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp (as you can see in the ACK section of that document). The structure in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm follows the one in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm | | | +--rw (option)? | | |+--:(tcp-ao) | | || +--rw enable-tcp-ao? boolean | | || +--rw ao-keychain?key-chain:key-chain-ref draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model | | | +--rw (option)? | | | +--:(ao) | | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean | | | | +--rw ao-keychain? | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref We are not echoing the full structure because the L3NM is a network model, not a device model. A network model does not aim to control every parameter that can be manipulated at the device level. Other than enabling/disabling TCP-AP and providing the ao-keychain, we didn't identify a need to control and customize at the network service level the data nodes in draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp: | | | | +--rw send-id? uint8 | | | | +--rw recv-id? uint8 | | | | +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean | | | | +--rw accept-ao-mismatch?boolean These optional nodes can be part of a local profile that can be directly manipulated at the device module (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model). We can make these changes, though: s/tcp-ao/ao s/enable-tcp-ao/enable-ao Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Martin Duke via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Envoyé : dimanche 19 septembre 2021 19:55 > À : The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; adr...@olddog.co.uk > Objet : Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with > DISCUSS) > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: Discuss > > 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ > > > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > (7.6.3) Is there a reason the TCP-AO model in this draft is different > from the one in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11? That draft is using a model > developed in the TCPM WG (draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp) specifically for > that purpose. > > If there is no compelling requirement for something different, or the > TCPM modelling work can be stretched to cover this use case as well, it > would be far better than rolling a totally separate TCP YANG model here. > > > > _ 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
[OPSAWG] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS)
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: Discuss 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ -- DISCUSS: -- (7.6.3) Is there a reason the TCP-AO model in this draft is different from the one in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11? That draft is using a model developed in the TCPM WG (draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp) specifically for that purpose. If there is no compelling requirement for something different, or the TCPM modelling work can be stretched to cover this use case as well, it would be far better than rolling a totally separate TCP YANG model here. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
