[Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

IETF Secretariat-3

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw/

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Shah, Himanshu

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals <[hidden email]> on behalf of IETF Secretariat <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Stewart Bryant-2

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart


On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 



_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Alexander Vainshtein

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Shah, Himanshu
In reply to this post by Stewart Bryant-2

Hi Stewart –

 

We have different recollection of the meeting discussions, I guess.

I believe, Greg Mirsky, also agreed against this specific language.

 

I believe what we discussed in consensus is to recommend that operator

MUST enable CW usage when implementation supports it and not include

“recommend” specific text.

 

More in line..

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals <[hidden email]> on behalf of Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Himanshu> This is not a new problem. Legacy Ethernet PWs with or without CW has been operationalized for many years now. I don’t see IETF requiring a mandate at this point.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

Himanshu> I thought I did during the meeting. This is an old problem, the operationalized networks without the CW have already resolved this problem. I don’t see the need for new vendor waving this RFC to scare them either to replace the boxes or undertake software upgrade for all their legacy boxes.

The language we discussed was to recommend enabling the CW (overriding the default, when needed) option for the implementations that support it. It would then be up to the operator to decide what the next step be if an implementation does not support CW option. This draft and previous RFC on this topic adequately explains the problem.

I was told that some intermediate ‘boxes’ not only do flow classification for load sharing on ECMP but also IP header checksum verification and drop the frame if checksum is bad. Geez..

The real miscreants are the intermediate boxes making wrong assumptions on the type of MPLS payload, may be we should recommend replacing some of those boxes with the ones that utilizes entropy labels rather than tinkering with large number of access boxes..

Seriously though, the draft does a good job underlining the problem, AGAIN, and pointing them on right direction – recommending replacing of the boxes should not be one of them (let them conclude that).

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 




_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Shah, Himanshu
In reply to this post by Alexander Vainshtein

Hi Sasha –

 

I responded to Stewart’s comments in a separate email on this thread.

This is a very old, well understood, well explained (in other RFC) problem

with well-known solutions and alternatives.

 

IMHO, importance of recent concerns is unwarranted. Besides, the Stewart’s

draft adequately covers the problem and solution – we are only discussing

“recommendation to replace the deployed boxes” text.

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Greg Mirsky-2
Dear All,
I've reviewed the meeting recording to refresh my recollection of the discussion. In summary, I support the text that conveys along the line "MUST use CW when both PEs support it for Ethernet PW". And, as Glenn Parsons had suggested, strong recommendation to consider migration to CW-capable equipment or be prepared to experience problems caused by misinterpretation of payload by P routers, e.g. out of order delivery.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Sasha –

 

I responded to Stewart’s comments in a separate email on this thread.

This is a very old, well understood, well explained (in other RFC) problem

with well-known solutions and alternatives.

 

IMHO, importance of recent concerns is unwarranted. Besides, the Stewart’s

draft adequately covers the problem and solution – we are only discussing

“recommendation to replace the deployed boxes” text.

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: <a href="tel:+972%203-926-6302" value="+97239266302" target="_blank">+972-39266302

Cell:      <a href="tel:+972%2054-926-6302" value="+972549266302" target="_blank">+972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals



_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Shah, Himanshu

Greg –

 

Please review the video recording. Exactly at 32min 30sec and few seconds afterwards.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Dear All,

I've reviewed the meeting recording to refresh my recollection of the discussion. In summary, I support the text that conveys along the line "MUST use CW when both PEs support it for Ethernet PW". And, as Glenn Parsons had suggested, strong recommendation to consider migration to CW-capable equipment or be prepared to experience problems caused by misinterpretation of payload by P routers, e.g. out of order delivery.

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Sasha –

 

I responded to Stewart’s comments in a separate email on this thread.

This is a very old, well understood, well explained (in other RFC) problem

with well-known solutions and alternatives.

 

IMHO, importance of recent concerns is unwarranted. Besides, the Stewart’s

draft adequately covers the problem and solution – we are only discussing

“recommendation to replace the deployed boxes” text.

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: <a href="tel:&#43;972%203-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-39266302

Cell:      <a href="tel:&#43;972%2054-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

 


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Greg Mirsky-2
Hi Himanshu,
and so I did. My notes reflects my opinion not as expressed at the mike but after all the discussion that took place. Hope that clarifies things.
If we can suggest steps other than using CW to avoid "first nibble" issue, then let's discuss and add them to the document.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Greg –

 

Please review the video recording. Exactly at 32min 30sec and few seconds afterwards.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>


Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Dear All,

I've reviewed the meeting recording to refresh my recollection of the discussion. In summary, I support the text that conveys along the line "MUST use CW when both PEs support it for Ethernet PW". And, as Glenn Parsons had suggested, strong recommendation to consider migration to CW-capable equipment or be prepared to experience problems caused by misinterpretation of payload by P routers, e.g. out of order delivery.

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Sasha –

 

I responded to Stewart’s comments in a separate email on this thread.

This is a very old, well understood, well explained (in other RFC) problem

with well-known solutions and alternatives.

 

IMHO, importance of recent concerns is unwarranted. Besides, the Stewart’s

draft adequately covers the problem and solution – we are only discussing

“recommendation to replace the deployed boxes” text.

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: <a href="tel:+972%203-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-39266302

Cell:      <a href="tel:+972%2054-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

 



_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Shah, Himanshu

Surely.

 

I only mentioned your name in the context of the meeting at IETF99.

 

Perhaps “MP” part of MPLS should have included proto header to begin with.

 

It is fallacy to assume that with one sentence in the upcoming draft/RFC

(that we are debating) would fix this “horrendous” problem in the network

that 2006 RFC 4385 and tons of literatures, papers, vendor notes/manuals,

slides, lectures, etc before and after 2006 could not fix!

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 5:09 PM
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Hi Himanshu,

and so I did. My notes reflects my opinion not as expressed at the mike but after all the discussion that took place. Hope that clarifies things.

If we can suggest steps other than using CW to avoid "first nibble" issue, then let's discuss and add them to the document.

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Greg –

 

Please review the video recording. Exactly at 32min 30sec and few seconds afterwards.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>


Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Dear All,

I've reviewed the meeting recording to refresh my recollection of the discussion. In summary, I support the text that conveys along the line "MUST use CW when both PEs support it for Ethernet PW". And, as Glenn Parsons had suggested, strong recommendation to consider migration to CW-capable equipment or be prepared to experience problems caused by misinterpretation of payload by P routers, e.g. out of order delivery.

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Sasha –

 

I responded to Stewart’s comments in a separate email on this thread.

This is a very old, well understood, well explained (in other RFC) problem

with well-known solutions and alternatives.

 

IMHO, importance of recent concerns is unwarranted. Besides, the Stewart’s

draft adequately covers the problem and solution – we are only discussing

“recommendation to replace the deployed boxes” text.

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: "Alexander com>" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <[hidden email]>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

 

It addresses a real operational problem, and outlines what looks to me a reasonable (actually, the only possible) solution of this problem.

 

At the same time I wonder if this draft should be the Standards Track or BCP. But this clearly can be defined once it is adopted.

 

As for deprecation of some aspects of RFCs in the Routing Area, we have a relatively recent deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute (RFC 7447) and retirement (which is another name for deprecation) of  TLVs from the G-ACH header (RFC 7026). So these things definitely happen.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

Office: <a href="tel:&#43;972%203-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-39266302

Cell:      <a href="tel:&#43;972%2054-926-6302" target="_blank">+972-549266302

Email:   [hidden email]

 

From: Pals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

Speaking as an individual contributor.

Hi Himanchu,

You made this point at the meeting, but I did not detect significant support from others present for your position.

There are two groups of people that we need to consult on this matter, the PALS WG which we are doing here, but also the Operations area, since we are publishing this text to solve an operational problem that was reported to us.

Such deprication proposals are not common in the routing area, because we rarely face such problems, but they are common in for example the security area where old crypto algorithms get phase out, so including such text in an RFC is not unheard of in an RFC.

Perhaps you can help us understand why you think the IETF should not make this recommendation? With that clarification I hope that we can better move towards achieving rough consensus on leaving the the text as is, tuning the text to address your concern, or removing it from the draft.

I do not understand why resolution of this point needs to gate WG adoption, since the draft cannot proceed to the IESG without achieving an adequate degree of consensus for publication, whilst adopting it communicates to our colleagues in the IEEE, and the operator community that we are addressing the concern that they raised with us.

- Stewart

 

On 10/08/2017 13:49, Shah, Himanshu wrote:

We explicitly discussed this point @IETF99 in PALS WG meeting, in the draft :

 

“To remove this problem in the long term, and hence to reduce the

   operational cost of investigating problems associated with the

   incorrect forwarding of Ethernet packets over PWs not using the CW,

   it is RECOMMENDED that equipment that does not support the CW be

   phased out of operational use.”

 

The rough consensus/understanding was that this language is not appropriate for the RFC.

 

I object to this paragraph (as I did in the meeting) and recommend removing it from the draft

before it is accepted as working group draft.

 

 

Thanks,

Himanshu

 

From: Pals [hidden email] on behalf of IETF Secretariat [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:11 AM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: [Pals] The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

 

 

The PALS WG has placed draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw in state

Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Andrew Malis)

 

The document is available at

 

_______________________________________________

Pals mailing list

 

 

 


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

 

 


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Loading...