From rbonica@juniper.net Tue Sep 4 09:03:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F96411E80A3 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8ec1LSG0h3Q for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0BD11E808A for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEYmOkLJJEey/UMoSukg11EEwAByJ4Ea@postini.com; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:03:06 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:00:44 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:00:44 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:00:44 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: "tig-diagnostics@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:00:42 -0400 Thread-Topic: draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 Thread-Index: Ac2Ktm/P6S0b7V/lRvupRDBu4ypcXw== Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782C5873F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 X-BeenThere: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:03:07 -0000 Melinda, Carlos, Thanks very much for posting this draft. It looks pretty good and I would l= ike to see it progress after some discussion on this mailing list. The following are a few comments: Header =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The header doesn't specify an intended status. I think that the intended st= atus should be BCP, because we are offering advice to the IETF regarding fu= ture work. Abstract =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The abstract refers to "Some recent proposals". However, by the time that t= his draft is published, nobody will remember what those proposals were. So,= I recommend replacing the Abstract with the following text: "This memo provides guidelines for the future enhancement of ICMP. Specific= ally, this memo defines the problem space in which ICMP is an appropriate s= olution. It also pre-empts the enhancement of ICMP for purposes outside of = that problem space." Introduction =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This section can be deleted. Section 2.0 provides a much better introductio= n. Acceptable use policy =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - Rename this section to INTRODUCTION - Replace the first two paragraphs with the following: "The following bullet points describe the problem space in which ICMP is an= appropriate solution: - add the following bullet point: "To test connectivity between two points = on the Internet". (You need this one to explain echo and echo reply.) - Add some text that says "You can enhance ICMP as much as you want, either= by adding new codes or by adding ICMP extensions, but only so long as the = extension serves the purposes listed above. Classification of existing message types =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - The enumeration of existing message types is distracting. Even worse, som= ebody is going to point to one of the totally undocumented ICMPv4 codes and= ask you how you know what it was supposed to do. I would replace the list with a bold assertion that *most* existing ICMP me= ssages fall within the three categories listed above. New Section =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D After your discussion of the management and control plane, please add a new= section that enumerates management and control functions that ICMP should = not assume. Make a point of saying that the list is not exhaustive. The lis= t should include: - probing routers to discover router state (like SNMP GET) - reporting anomalies other than failure to forward a packet (like SNMP TRA= PS and NOTIFICATIONS) - distributing off-link routing information (like OSPF) - -------------------------- Ron Bonica vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf From cpignata@cisco.com Thu Sep 6 02:14:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C801021F8526 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dhD1VxPrzakH for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D6521F84DF for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:14:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4575; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346922872; x=1348132472; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=3CDwbMTCS22VQCvN/ehXjlYAaFJdfuUdvn665SMOUjA=; b=gvmYCIFygciPKQYlg4EAp1jPiXNFZHgWW3lquP6N0OnXiQnHQqEsbgrj 2gl9+0xQkJGrUGrzCH3dT7z/7i9P629teuUvtWemEEeXdNZwdYEKpUq2Z tdL/0KA90W0JePBxEDEiUXdkEQ3fznuGFcfSlil11lZll5nK4rOaD6MIs 8=; X-Files: signature.asc : 203 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPtoSFCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFux+BB4IgAQEBAwEBAQEPATQCJQsFCwIBCA44JwslAQEEDgUJBQ0Hh2UGC5pEkQiPEosRhWVgA45igSCFV44zgWeCYw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,379,1344211200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="118816407" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 09:14:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q869EWui031491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:14:32 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.253]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 04:14:31 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: Ronald Bonica Thread-Topic: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 Thread-Index: Ac2Ktm/P6S0b7V/lRvupRDBu4ypcXwBRYOQA Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:14:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782C5873F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782C5873F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.105.244] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19166.005 x-tm-as-result: No--51.234800-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EC36F272-EEA7-4935-A68C-02EEEBDA8946"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "tig-diagnostics@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 X-BeenThere: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:14:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EC36F272-EEA7-4935-A68C-02EEEBDA8946 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Ron, Thanks for following up on this document. Please see inline. On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Melinda, Carlos, >=20 > Thanks very much for posting this draft. It looks pretty good and I = would like to see it progress after some discussion on this mailing = list. >=20 > The following are a few comments: >=20 > Header > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > The header doesn't specify an intended status. I think that the = intended status should be BCP, because we are offering advice to the = IETF regarding future work. +1. >=20 > Abstract > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > The abstract refers to "Some recent proposals". However, by the time = that this draft is published, nobody will remember what those proposals = were. So, I recommend replacing the Abstract with the following text: >=20 > "This memo provides guidelines for the future enhancement of ICMP. = Specifically, this memo defines the problem space in which ICMP is an = appropriate solution. It also pre-empts the enhancement of ICMP for = purposes outside of that problem space." >=20 One question: are these 'enhancements' of ICMP or 'extensions' of ICMP? = Or simply applications/uses? > Introduction > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > This section can be deleted. Section 2.0 provides a much better = introduction. >=20 > Acceptable use policy > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > - Rename this section to INTRODUCTION > - Replace the first two paragraphs with the following: >=20 > "The following bullet points describe the problem space in which ICMP = is an appropriate solution: >=20 > - add the following bullet point: "To test connectivity between two = points on the Internet". (You need this one to explain echo and echo = reply.) >=20 > - Add some text that says "You can enhance ICMP as much as you want, = either by adding new codes or by adding ICMP extensions, but only so = long as the extension serves the purposes listed above. >=20 One potential approach is to go back to the early definitions of = ICMPv4|6, in which there is a high-level taxonomy of ICMP error messages = and ICMP query messages -- with the latter further split in requests and = replies. Note how things like Router Discovery are not OAM. RFC1470 = describes ICMP as to monitor/debug IP networks; but redirect is not. > Classification of existing message types > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > - The enumeration of existing message types is distracting. Even = worse, somebody is going to point to one of the totally undocumented = ICMPv4 codes and ask you how you know what it was supposed to do. >=20 > I would replace the list with a bold assertion that *most* existing = ICMP messages fall within the three categories listed above. >=20 This also makes sense. > New Section > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > After your discussion of the management and control plane, please add = a new section that enumerates management and control functions that ICMP = should not assume. Make a point of saying that the list is not = exhaustive. The list should include: >=20 > - probing routers to discover router state (like SNMP GET) > - reporting anomalies other than failure to forward a packet (like = SNMP TRAPS and NOTIFICATIONS) > - distributing off-link routing information (like OSPF) The offlink is a good modifier. Where is RPL in this? Thanks, -- Carlos. > - >=20 > -------------------------- > Ron Bonica > vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > tig-diagnostics mailing list > tig-diagnostics@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tig-diagnostics >=20 --Apple-Mail=_EC36F272-EEA7-4935-A68C-02EEEBDA8946 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlBIAXoACgkQtfDPGTp3USwz7QCeO287n2cIH7/64VfGDQRi55Gw O/kAoMDihwDkzqRXTrUY6sHhvF+khl89 =9s1o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_EC36F272-EEA7-4935-A68C-02EEEBDA8946-- From rbonica@juniper.net Sun Sep 9 18:17:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608C521F8462 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7UTDc7AJxel for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3A321F84D2 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUE0/szIBZjSVSpAQxCABZJTpj5DFZyBY@postini.com; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:17:40 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:16:43 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:16:42 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:16:42 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:16:41 -0400 Thread-Topic: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 Thread-Index: Ac2Ktm/P6S0b7V/lRvupRDBu4ypcXwBRYOQAAL1nOuA= Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7830D75BD@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782C5873F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "tig-diagnostics@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 X-BeenThere: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 01:17:41 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpignata@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 5:14 AM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01 >=20 > Hi Ron, >=20 > Thanks for following up on this document. Please see inline. >=20 > On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >=20 > > Melinda, Carlos, > > > > Thanks very much for posting this draft. It looks pretty good and I > would like to see it progress after some discussion on this mailing > list. > > > > The following are a few comments: > > > > Header > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > The header doesn't specify an intended status. I think that the > intended status should be BCP, because we are offering advice to the > IETF regarding future work. >=20 > +1. >=20 > > > > Abstract > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > The abstract refers to "Some recent proposals". However, by the time > that this draft is published, nobody will remember what those proposals > were. So, I recommend replacing the Abstract with the following text: > > > > "This memo provides guidelines for the future enhancement of ICMP. > Specifically, this memo defines the problem space in which ICMP is an > appropriate solution. It also pre-empts the enhancement of ICMP for > purposes outside of that problem space." > > >=20 > One question: are these 'enhancements' of ICMP or 'extensions' of ICMP? > Or simply applications/uses? Err... I don't know. I was using the words interchangeably. What do you thi= nk? >=20 > > Introduction > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > This section can be deleted. Section 2.0 provides a much better > introduction. > > > > Acceptable use policy > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > - Rename this section to INTRODUCTION > > - Replace the first two paragraphs with the following: > > > > "The following bullet points describe the problem space in which ICMP > is an appropriate solution: > > > > - add the following bullet point: "To test connectivity between two > > points on the Internet". (You need this one to explain echo and echo > > reply.) > > > > - Add some text that says "You can enhance ICMP as much as you want, > either by adding new codes or by adding ICMP extensions, but only so > long as the extension serves the purposes listed above. > > >=20 > One potential approach is to go back to the early definitions of > ICMPv4|6, in which there is a high-level taxonomy of ICMP error > messages and ICMP query messages -- with the latter further split in > requests and replies. Note how things like Router Discovery are not > OAM. RFC1470 describes ICMP as to monitor/debug IP networks; but > redirect is not. Sounds reasonable. Ron