Subject: [sfc] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:29:37 -0800

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I notice that in his RTGDIR review of version 08 [*], Stig Venaas suggested
some improvements to the security considerations section. This was subsequently
discussed and Yuehua Wei proposed some new text [**] for version 09. That text
isn’t present, and I don’t see any further resolution on the mailing list
either. I’d appreciate it if the topic were closed by either adding the
proposed text, or some other text to resolve Stig’s concern, or explanation of
why no change was made.

[*]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-08-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2021-09-29/
[**] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/Q2Snf_ZLTkJ1augbaWpmNYlwFBU/

2. In §8.2, the two first references, [GROUPBASEDPOLICY] and [GROUPPOLICY] are
deficient. At a minimum, a reference should provide enough information to allow
a reader to straightforwardly determine how to retrieve it. This is true even
if it’s not an openly-available online source. These two references have less
than the bare bones, I don’t know how to find them or refer to them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I support all of Ben’s discuss points. I also want to reiterate his comment
about the desirability of having useful captions on the figures.

2. In §4.2, you write,

                          This context header carries both the format
   and value of the Tenant identifier.

However, I don’t see anywhere that the header “carries… the format”. Indeed,
you write that the Tenant ID is an opaque value. As far as I can tell, there’s
no way to infer anything about its structure without a priori knowledge.

If that is correct, you can simplify the sentence to “This context header
carries the Tenant Identifier.” If it’s not correct, please explain?

3. Nit, in §4.7 the words “quite efficiently” don’t seem to serve any useful
purpose; the document would be better off without them IMO.

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:06:37 +0100

Hi John,

please see inline.

-m

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/

I think the authors had the intent of including the proposed text but 
indeed apparently failed to do so before it went in IESG Review and I 
missed catching this at that time, so thank you.
I'll ping Stig to see if this matches his expectations.

> than the bare bones, I don’t know how to find them or refer to them.

I didn't feel strongly about these as they are Informational.
Yet, I've found:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy
and https://wiki.opendaylight.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=336503 
for ODL (although it's qualified as an archived project).
Maybe the authors have better references.