Using an Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-10

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss by rather describing requirements for the transport than scratching out an MPTCP-based solution! I like the new text! Also thanks again to Yoshi for the TSV review!

[Ballot comment]

secure ACP was extendable via untrusted routers then it would be a
  lot more verify the secure domain assertion.  Therefore the ACP edge
  devices are not supposed to redistribute routes from non-ACP routers
There's something grammatically wrong here and I can't make sense of this sentence.



  TLS/DTLS ([RFC5246])/([RFC6347]) with mutual AN-domain certificate
  authentication - and does not incur new key management.
This isn't entirely clear to me. What are the identities that these devices are using to talk to each other? Are they always FQDNs?



  into IPv4 support for ACP will have a longer term benefit or enough
  critical short-term use-cases.  Support for IPv4-only for ACP is
  purely a strategic choice to focus on the known important long term
I think this probably should say IPv6 only



  address collision even though there is no central assignment
  authority.  This is helped by the expectation, that ACPs are never
  expected to connect all together, but only few ACPs may ever need to
Nit: no comma between "expectation" and "that"



  ACP packets can be recognized to come from you, you may need to list
  your prefixes in multiple of those sites.
As I read this, it helps others to list, not yourself, right?



  Any current and future protocols must rely on secure end-to-end
  communications (TLS/DTLS) and identification and authentication via
This looks normative. Should it be MUST?

[Ballot comment]
* The first paragraph of Section 2.1.4. is extremely difficult to read and the sentences seem incomplete/malformed. Please consider rewording

"  ACP does not support IPv4: Single stack IPv6 management of the
  network via ACP and (as needed) data plane.  Independent of whether
  the data plane is dual-stack, has IPv4 as a service or is single
  stack IPv6.  Dual plane management, IPv6 for ACP, IPv4 for the data
  plane is likewise an architecturally simple option."

[Ballot comment]
I am skeptical that there are no normative references at all. Is it reasonable that a reader could skip all the references and still fully understand this document?

[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.1.5 talks about use of MPTCP:
"DNS naming is set up to provide the ACP IPv6 address of network
  devices.  Unbeknownst to the application, MPTCP is used.  MPTCP
  mutually discovers between the NOC and network device the data-plane
  address and caries all traffic across it when that MPTCP subflow
  across the data-plane can be built."
However, I'm actually uncertain how this is supposed to work and what "Unbeknownst to the application" should mean. If another address should be signaled to the other host, this needs to be indicated by the application or at least some kind of policy framework above MPTCP. Also MPTCP will by default use both paths simultaneously while still looking like one connection to the application, meaning the application has no control which path is used for which traffic. I guess you can open a second subflow and then configure the first subflow as backup path but I'm not sure if that's what you want (given the application/policy framework will still not know which path is used)..? Please provide more information about what the expected usage scenario is here.

[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1.5 says:
"DNS naming is set up to provide the ACP IPv6 address of network
  devices.  Unbeknownst to the application, MPTCP is used.  MPTCP
  mutually discovers between the NOC and network device the data-plane
  address and caries all traffic across it when that MPTCP subflow
  across the data-plane can be built."
However I'm actally uncertain how this is supposed to work and what "Unbeknownst to the application" should mean. If another address should be signaled to the other host, this needs to be configured by the application. Also MPTCP will use both paths simulatinuously while still looking like one connestion to the application. I think want you want to a new, second TCP connection to carry all the OAM traffic. You cannot/should not use MPTCP for that. I guess you can open a second subflow and the close the first subflow but I'm not sue if that's what you want either..?

[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1.5 says:
"DNS naming is set up to provide the ACP IPv6 address of network
  devices.  Unbeknownst to the application, MPTCP is used.  MPTCP
  mutually discovers between the NOC and network device the data-plane
  address and caries all traffic across it when that MPTCP subflow
  across the data-plane can be built."
However I'm actally uncertain how this is supposed to work and what "Unbeknownst to the application" should mean. If another address should be signaled to the other host, this needs to be configured by the application. Also MPTCP will use both paths simulatinuously while still looking like one connestion to the application. I think want you want to a new, second TCP connection to carry all the OAM traffic. You cannot/should not use MPTCP for that. I guess you can open a second subflow and the close the first subflow but I'm not if that's what you want either..?

[Ballot discuss]
I like this document, and look forward to it being published.  However, it caught my attention that there are no Normative References.

It seems clear to me that (at least) an understanding of the ACP is necessary to properly achieve the objective of the document: "how to integrate OAM processes with the autonomic control plane (ACP) in Autonomic Networks (AN) in order to provide stable and secure connectivity for those OAM processes."  I then think that the reference to I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane should be Normative.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-11-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity@ietf.org, anima-chairs@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang , terry.manderson@icann.org, anima@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Autonomic Networking Integrated
Model and Approach WG (anima) to consider the following document: - 'Using
Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-11-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance - as per BCP161,
  (RFC6291) processes for data networks are often subject to the
  problem of circular dependencies when relying on connectivity
  provided by the network to be managed for the OAM purposes.

  Provisioning while bringing up devices and networks tends to be more
  difficult to automate than service provisioning later on, changes in
  core network functions impacting reachability cannot be automated
  because of ongoing connectivity requirements for the OAM equipment
  itself, and widely used OAM protocols are not secure enough to be
  carried across the network without security concerns.

  This document describes how to integrate OAM processes with the
  autonomic control plane (ACP) in Autonomic Networks (AN) in order to
  provide stable and secure connectivity for those OAM processes.  This
  connectivity is not subject to aforementioned circular dependencies.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated October 21, 2017.

draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07 write-up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Informational. The document describes how to integrate OAM processes with
  the autonomic control plane (ACP) in Autonomic Networks (AN) in order to
  provide stable and secure connectivity for those OAM processes. The type
  clearly of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
 
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples
can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

  This document describes how to integrate OAM processes with the autonomic
  control plane (ACP) in Autonomic Networks (AN) in order to provide stable
  and secure connectivity for those OAM processes.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

  This document was called draft-eckert-anima-stable-connectivity prior to
  its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of adoption and
  none against, so this document was adopted in December 2015. There was
  interest in this work posts since its adoption. There was never any
  opposition for this work.

  This document went through a relevant long document development
  period (12 months for individual document period, 22 month for WG
  document period). It has been reviewed well.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was
a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

  This document went through multiple reviews by multiple participants.
  So far, there is no existing implementations.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd.
  Terry Manderson is the responsible AD.
 
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication,
please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I reviewed this document thorough once for -02 versions (and had
  other minor comments from time to time):
 
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg02777.html 
 
  The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
  in -03 and -04 version along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members. 
  This document -07 version is ready for publication in my opinion.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

  No.
 
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No.
 
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with
this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware
of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  There are no outstanding issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes. The authors, Michael H. Behringer and Toerless Eckert have confirmed in
  writing that they are not aware of any IPR, and that any and all appropriate
  IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
  and BCP 79 have already been filed.
 
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.
 
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG
  participants.
 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections.
 
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  This document is now ID nits free.
 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this document.
   
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No. All normative references are published RFCs.
 
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No. This document does not update any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm
that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA
registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  No. This document does not have any IANA consideration as an Informational
  document.
 
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No such registry is requested in this document.
 
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There are no such parts to the document.