Subject: RE: Urgent: draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-08.txt - additional last call

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:35:13 +0300

At the request of Bert Wijnen, I have looked on some aspects related tot he way the 802 filters and markers are implemented. I sent a set of comments to the editors on 5/13, and they have been partially acknowledged by Ravi Sahita. However, I do not see any of the changes that I suggested implemented in this latest release.

Here are my comments again.

- The current scheme allows only for exact matching for VlanId. This does not allow for any range or wildcarding operations. Did you consider defining a VlanIdMask object, similar to the one defined for SA and DA?
- What is the reason to use SYNTAX of BITS for frwk802FilterUserPriority? There is nothing terribly wrong with this, it just seems inconsistent with the way frwk802FilterVlanId, and the marker objects are defined.
- There is no filter for packet length (or should I look for it some place else?)
- 802 marker table - is not stripping the tag (making the packets untagged) a possible marker action? You cannot do it today with the marker table 

Thanks,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hahn, Scott [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:22 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Mark L. Stevens (E-mail); Bert Wijnen (Bert) (E-mail)
> Subject: Urgent: draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-08.txt - 
> additional last call
> 
> 
> 
> The Framework PIB has been updated following IESG comments and some
> very intensive work by several people. The new I-D is at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-08.txt
> 
> There are a number of changes since the version that passed 
> WG Last Call and
> our AD has asked for an additional last call. Since the IESG 
> is expediting
> the review of this draft to meet a 3GPP deadline, it is 
> important to get any
> comments from the WG ASAP. Comments need to be received in 
> the next day or
> so.
> 
> I'm sorry about the short notice, but we really want to help 
> 3GPP meet their
> deadlines.
> 
> Please review this document and send any comments to the list 
> as soon as
> possible (i.e. now).
> 
> 
>   Scott Hahn
>   RAP WG co-chair
> 
>

---

From: "Andrew Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 07:43:11 -0700

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Dan,

1. A mask on VLANID: this would be appropriate if there were some sort of
internal structure to the numbers but there is none. A range might be
useful. (A mask is appropriate for MAC addresses since there is a well-known
internal structure to these although a range is probably less so).
2. I don't see any reason to favour BITS or INTEGER for user_priority -
maybe BITS since there is some (approximate) substructure in the number
space to handle switches implementing fewer than 8 traffic classes (see
802.1p mapping tables).
3. Length filter - I guess that might be useful but it's not a L2-specific
thing is it?
4. Stripping of VLAN tags is a job for VLAN PIBs, not QoS/marking PIBs -
it's a packet format thing, not a QoS thing. There's only one special case,
that of priority-tagged frames that do not indicate a VLANID (i.e. 000) but,
even there, the 802.1Q standard does not specify any mode where a bridge
should strip the tag just for this special case (you have to configure, on a
per-VLAN basis, whether a port should forward tagged or untagged). You could
argue that some implementations allow you to do this but it's not specified
anywhere in a standard.

Hope these comments help (I missed your comments first time around).

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:35 AM
To: Hahn, Scott; [email-masked]
Cc: Mark L. Stevens (E-mail); Bert Wijnen (Bert) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Urgent: draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-08.txt - additional
last call

At the request of Bert Wijnen, I have looked on some aspects related tot he
way the 802 filters and markers are implemented. I sent a set of comments to
the editors on 5/13, and they have been partially acknowledged by Ravi
Sahita. However, I do not see any of the changes that I suggested
implemented in this latest release.

- The current scheme allows only for exact matching for VlanId. This does
not allow for any range or wildcarding operations. Did you consider defining
a VlanIdMask object, similar to the one defined for SA and DA?
- What is the reason to use SYNTAX of BITS for frwk802FilterUserPriority?
There is nothing terribly wrong with this, it just seems inconsistent with
the way frwk802FilterVlanId, and the marker objects are defined.
- There is no filter for packet length (or should I look for it some place
else?)
- 802 marker table - is not stripping the tag (making the packets untagged)
a possible marker action? You cannot do it today with the marker table

Thanks,

Dan