Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:56:57 +0000

Hi Wes, 

Thank you for the (re)review :-)

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Wesley Eddy via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : vendredi 30 juillet 2021 22:59
> À : [email-masked]
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Objet : Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09
> 
> Reviewer: Wesley Eddy
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments
> were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are
> copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any
> issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.
> 
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider
> this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please
> always CC [email-masked] if you reply to or forward this review.
> 
> This document basically looks good to me, though I have a small
> number of
> comments:
> 
> (1) I think this comment impacts only the narrative and not the YANG
> model itself.  The list of possible underlay-transport values seems
> to be a mixture of expected types of encapsulations, but then a
> couple of things at the end that are signaling and not
> encapsulations per-se.  The last 2 entries in the list on page 6 are
> what seem out of place to me - RSVP and BGP.  I don't think it's
> quite correct to refer to these two as the underlay-transport.
> 

[Med] Good point. These are used to determine how the underlay is set. What about making this change: 

OLD: 
   A YANG grouping that defines the type of the underlay transport
   for a VPN service.

NEW:
   A YANG grouping that defines the type of the underlay transport
   for a VPN service or how that underlay is set.

> (2) This is a YANG model question, that I'm unsure of.  I want to
> make sure that in the match-type when match-flow is used that a
> combination of L3 and L4 attributes can be used.

[Med] Both L3 and L4 can be included given that these too are not cases of the same choice. An example that follows the model and includes both L3/L4 is shown below: 

{
  "id": "a-rule-id",
  "ipv6": {
    "destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8::/32"
  },
  "udp": {
    "destination-port-range-or-operator": {
      "operator": "eq",
      "port": 53
    }
  }
}

  It appears like
> either L3 or L4 can be indicated, mutually exclusive, but I don't
> quite understand how it would then be possible to properly represent
> the combination of IP, transport protocol, and ports that identify a
> flow.  It seems like a list of criteria from both L3 and L4
> components is what's needed to express a flow, rather than a choice
> of L3 or L4.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.