Thank you for the changes intended to address my concerns. I have
trimmed your responses, retaining only those where I think further
discussion is appropriate.
On 7/23/2024 11:17 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote:
*/Hi Joel,/*
*//*
*/Thank you a lot for your review that certainly helps in improving
the document./*
*/A new revision has been submitted this week, hopefully addressing
your concerns./*
*/Direct answers to your comments are inline./*
*//*
*/Ciao/*
*//*
*/L./*
*From: *Joel Halpern via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
*Subject: [6lo] Rtgdir early review of
draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06*
*Date: *7 July 2024 at 21:04:57 GMT+2
*To: *<rtg-...@ietf.org>
*Cc: *6lo@ietf.org,
draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing....@ietf.org
*Reply-To: *Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Not Ready
Hello
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of
this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ddraft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing/
The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends
on the
stage that the document has reached.
This review is provided in response to a request from the working
group for
review before working group last call.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
Document: draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-06.txt
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 7-July-2024
Intended Status: Proposed Status
Summary: This document has issues that need to be addressed before working
group last call.
Comments: Before describing my concerns, let me note that this is an
interesting and well-written document.
Major:
The first major issue is one that is either easy to remedy or quite
controversial. This document describes a major change in the
routing and
forwarding technology for certain classes of cases. As such, it
seems that
experience with the work is needed before the IETF should mark it as a
proposed standard. This draft should be an experimental RFC. And it
should include a description of the evaluation of the experiment.
Which
should, in my opinion, include a clear description once experience
has been
received of the reasons why neither the existing 6lo work nor the
very low
overhead babel work are sufficient to address the problems. (The draft
alludes to the former, but does not provide evidence of its claims
of need.)
*/[LI] I may agree that we were a bit too optimistic and at this stage
we are no yet able to provide large scale deployment experience./*
*However, we discussed this comment among the co-authors and we think
that standard track is still a valid status.*
*This is not new routing/forwarding technology, it is a different way
to encode source routing.*
*Further, in IoT, we rely a lot on academic implementations and papers
to validate our tech, for the lack of big companies / big investments *
*like in core internet or cloud. Experience tells us that academia
only implements and evaluates proposed standards.*
*If PASA fails that test, we'll do a PASA 2. But we need std to get
that test at all.*
*As for the problem addressed (and described in section 4), this
document does not claim that existing solutions, like RPL and BABEL
cannot do the job. *
*This document proposes a different approach that lowers even more the
overhead. *
*This comes at the price of not being suitable for mobile environments
(and the proposed use cases are mostly wired).*
*<jmh> changing the basic forwarding paradigm still seems major enough
to me that I think we need community-understandable evaluation of it.
And it, as you say, the existing technologies work, then we need some
clearer evaluation of the benefits of such a change. If you really
think standards track is appropriate, then it seems to me that you need
such an analysis in this document. </jmh>*
**
**
The second major issue is that, as far as I can tell, the draft
assume a
single configured root router, with no provision for failover if it
fails.
And apparently, if the root fails and some other root takes over, the
entire system must be renumbered. Even though the draft goes to great
lengths to require all routers to have persistent storage for address
assignment state. While section 12 states that multiple roots are
beyond
the scope of this draft, the degree of protocol adaptation apparently
required to cope with this makes such a claim prohibitive for a
standards
track document and questionable even for an experimental document.
(Multi-connectivity is simply too common to be able to evaluate the
experiment without including that capability.)
*/[LI] Reliability is extensively discussed in a separate document,
which includes the multiple root case./*
*/Merging the two documents would make the overall document long and
not necessarily more clear./*
*/Section 12 states clearly that the multiple roots case is included
in [I-D.li-6lo-pasa-reliability]./*
*/<jmh>Given the pervasiveness of multi-connectivity, it seems that if
you want (as stated above) standards track for this document, the
document really needs to say how it works in such environments. You
could do that by making an explicit normative reference to a second
document that describes it, but then you are normatively coupled to a
document which, if I understand your answer, is not yet even adopted by
the working gorup. Your choice. </jmh>/*
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list -- 6lo@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 6lo-le...@ietf.org
