LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22

[Ballot comment]
DNS names and URIs need normative references.

AS per discussion with Dino:
Adding an informative reference to use case document(s) in the Introduction Section and examples of URIs and JSON types would help a reader unfamiliar with LCAF to better understand the need for these types.

[Ballot discuss]

(More mail sent for -20, basically discussion continues)

I basically support Alexey's discuss position and Ben's
comment but with a bit more detail below.

- section 3: I don't see how you can produce a canonical
order of the LCAF encodings if two can contain e.g. the
same values other than different URLs, since there is no
canonical way to order URLs (or JSON structures etc.)
without a lot more specification.

- 4.3: I agree with Ben's comment. You ought include some
text here to the effect that this information can be
privacy senseitive and to recommend not sending or
storing it in such cases.

- 4.4: there are also potential privacy issues here if
this could be used to identify traffic that is from one
specific host behind a NAT. A similar privacy warning
should be included.

- 4.7: Sorry, when is key material sent in a message? How
is that protected? (Key ids are fine, but not key values)

- 4.10.2: The same privacy issues apply here as for 4.3
and 4.4, if the MAC address maps to e.g.  a portable
device carried by a person.

- 4.10.3 and all of section 5: What are these for?  I
don't see the sense in defining these if there is no well
defined way to use them. Any of these might have
undesirable security and/or privacy characteristics.

- Section 6: There are security considerations.  See
above.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for taking care of my DISCUSS points. I will clear but I note that the COMMENT points below still seem pertinent.

* Can you please clarify why Rsvd2 is reserved for future use but this document already ends up specifying it under "Segmentation"

* I think the reference for AFI is not correct. Shouldn't it be http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml? The current reference leads to a generic IANA page.

* Section 4.8:

Is the explanation for the AFI correct? The source dest lookups don't seem to be multicast addresses.

"When a specific AFI has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address."

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for taking care of my DISCUSS points.

* Can you please clarify why Rsvd2 is reserved for future use but this document already ends up specifying it under "Segmentation"

* I think the reference for AFI is not correct. Shouldn't it be http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml? The current reference leads to a generic IANA page.

* Section 4.8:

Is the explanation for the AFI correct? The source dest lookups don't seem to be multicast addresses.

"When a specific AFI has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address."

[Ballot comment]
I support Stephen's discuss. It is unclear if and how this information is used and if this is the right channel to transmit the information; further the security considerations are not sufficient and should be more specific regarding the information provided.

[Ballot discuss]

I basically support Alexey's discuss position and Ben's
comment but with a bit more detail below.

- section 3: I don't see how you can produce a canonical
order of the LCAF encodings if two can contain e.g. the
same values other than different URLs, since there is no
canonical way to order URLs (or JSON structures etc.)
without a lot more specification.

- 4.3: I agree with Ben's comment. You ought include some
text here to the effect that this information can be
privacy senseitive and to recommend not sending or
storing it in such cases.

- 4.4: there are also potential privacy issues here if
this could be used to identify traffic that is from one
specific host behind a NAT. A similar privacy warning
should be included.

- 4.7: Sorry, when is key material sent in a message? How
is that protected? (Key ids are fine, but not key values)

- 4.10.2: The same privacy issues apply here as for 4.3
and 4.4, if the MAC address maps to e.g.  a portable
device carried by a person.

- 4.10.3 and all of section 5: What are these for?  I
don't see the sense in defining these if there is no well
defined way to use them. Any of these might have
undesirable security and/or privacy characteristics.

- Section 6: There are security considerations.  See
above.

[Ballot discuss]
To IESG:

Is this just me or do other people find it to be quite confusing why information such as URIs and JSON blobs can be included in LISP mapping database? I admit that this might be just my ignorance of LISP, but the document Introduction (or Abstract) doesn't explain the need.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this doc. I plan to recommend its approval, but there were a couple of things that I think should be fixed for clarity before issuing the RFC. First, I agree with Peter Yee who did a Gen-ART review on this document:

> Page 6, Rsvd2 definition: the definition both says "reserved for future use"
> and then says some types actually use it.  That sounds like present use.
> And to generically say that it should be sent as zero and ignored, but then
> to give uses (such as Type 2)  for it  is confusing.  I suggest rethinking
> the wording here.

The type that seems to differ from the "ignore" advice in Section 3 is Type 14. Perhaps you can reword somehow, or name the Rsvd2 field to Flags, and let the Subsections define that as "set to 0 and ignore on receipt". Or something along those lines?

I also agree with this comment and believe the text should be corrected:

> Page 6, Length definition: there's mention of a "Reserved" field that's
> included in the minimum length of 8 bytes that are not part of the length
> value.  Since there are actually Rsvd1 and Rsvd2 fields in the generic
> version of the LCAF and sometimes even Rsvd3 and Rsvd4 fields when using
> specific Types, it might be better to spell out which reserved fields (Rsvd1
> and Rsvd2) are meant here rather than giving the field a summary name that
> doesn't actually appear in the format.  This is also important because any
> Rsvd3 and Rsvd4 fields are included in the Length field, so using a generic
> "Reserved" description is ambiguous at best.

And this seems like a bug as well:

> Page 13, RTR RLOC Address definition, 4th sentence: The ability to determine
> the number of RTRs encoded by looking at the value of the LCAF length
> doesn't seem feasible.  3 IPv4 RTR RLOCs will produce the same LCAF Length
> as 1 IPv6 RTR RLOC.

[Ballot comment]
Subsections under Section 4 treat some of the fields in different ways. For instance, in most cases the subsections do not indicate anything about the base fields, but for instance Subsection 4.9 does say something about Rsvd1 and Rsvd2:

  Rsvd{1,2,3,4}:  must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.

This text was raised as an issue by Peter as well:

      When there are no RTRs
      supplied, the RTR fields can be omitted and reflected by the LCAF
      length field or an AFI of 0 can be used to indicate zero RTRs
      encoded.

Why are we giving two options? Or is this a be-conservative-what-you-send-but-liberal-in-what-you-accept situation?

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.3 talks about geo coordinates. I think I understand that these coordinates may give the location of a device. Is there any expectation that said device can be associated with a person? The security considerations mention this briefly. Have the working group considered whether the guidance in RFC 6280/BCP 160 is applicable here?

[Ballot discuss]
The way that the length field is specified in this document is inconsistent, extremely confusing and sometimes wrong.

e.g. In Section ASCII Names in the Mapping Database

Length value n:  length in bytes AFI=17 field and the null-terminated ASCII string (the last byte of 0 is included).

but the field mentions 2+n. Only one of these can be correct

Similarly in Section 4.9.  Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding

  Length value n:  length in bytes of fields that follow.

but the field mentions 4+n. Again one of these can be correct.

Similar error in Section 5.2 (Generic Database Mapping Lookups)

* Section 4.10.4.  Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings

The "IP TOS, IPv6 QQS or Flow Label" field is underspecified and cannot be implemented in an interoperable manner. There are multiple ways to encode the 8 bit values (the IP TOS and the IPv6 Traffic Class) into the 24 bit field. Similarly, there are at least two obvious ways to encode the 20 bit flow label into this field.

Also the "IPv6 QoS" needs to be renamed to "IPv6 Traffic Class"

[Ballot comment]
* Can you please clarify why Rsvd2 is reserved for future use but this document already ends up specifying it under "Segmentation"

* I think the reference for AFI is not correct. Shouldn't it be http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml? The current reference leads to a generic IANA page.

* Section 4.8:

Is the explanation for the AFI correct? The source dest lookups don't seem to be multicast addresses.

"When a specific AFI has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address."

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have three questions about this document.

Upon approval of this document, we understand that we have only one action to complete: the creation of a registry called "LISP LCAF Type," which will be maintained in accordance with the Specification Required registration procedure described in RFC 5226.

The registry's initial contents read as follows:

Value  LISP LCAF Type Name        Reference             
0  Null Body Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
1  AFI List Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
2  Instance ID Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
3  AS Number Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
4  Unassigned
5  Geo Coordinates Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
6  Unassigned
7  NAT-Traversal Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
8  Unassigned
9  Multicast Info Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
10  Explicit Locator Path Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
11  Security Key Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
12  Source/Dest Key Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
13  Replication List Entry Type      [RFC-to-be, Section 3]
14-255?  Unassigned

QUESTION 1: http://www.iana.org/protocols lists a category called "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters," currently consisting of three registries that are available at http://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters. Should this registry be created at that URL, in that category?

QUESTION 2: Should section numbers be included in the registry's reference field?

QUESTION 3: Is the registry's maximum value 255?

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, "Luigi Iannone" , ggx@gigix.net, draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf@ietf.org, db3546@att.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)'
  as Experimental 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 2016-10-04. 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


  This draft defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP
  control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
  Mapping Database System.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf/ballot/


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

draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd 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?

    This document is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC.
    It is the proper type of RFC since it introduces a
      canonical address encoding for the Locator/ID Separation
      Protocol (LISP), whose RFCs have Experimental status.
    The RFC type is clearly marked 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:

      This document describes a canonical address format encoding
      used in the ocator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), more precisely
      in the lookup keys of the LISP mapping system and related control
      messages. The intent is to define a general syntax that includes
      Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and value fields.
      Such general syntax aims at enabling an easy evolution of the
      protocol to support future applications.



Working Group Summary:

    The document has been around for a while, and has been discussed
      several time. From the beginning, there was strong support, because
      the WG felt that the flexibility introduced by a canonical address
      encoding was an important feature, which would enable using LISP
      to be used for use-cases and applications which are not in the
      original scope of the protocol.
      Such support never faded. Discussion in the WG group mostly
      focused on the initial type allocation and their definition.
      The WG converged on splitting the initial type allocation and
      their usage in two different sections. Section 4 of the document
      defines types for which the use-cases are well defined and
      implementation exists or are ongoing. Section 5 contains
      types that have a more experimental nature, for which they usage
      is either not yet clearly identified or not completely defined.
    The version of the document that was approved during WG Last
      Call is -13. As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes
    to the document, all of them editorial, intended to solve as well
      a few idnits errors that were showing up.


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?

    The LCAF is currently supported by various LISP implementations.
      May be not all of the types are supported but the basic encoding
      syntax and types are there.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

        Luigi Iannone


Who is the Responsible Area Director?

      Deborah Brungard .



(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 carefully the document. The text is sufficiently
        clear and understandable.
      On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial
      changes.
        I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
        publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
      I checked the ID nits (output provided  on point 11)
      and everything is clear.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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.

        I do think think that a additional specific review is needed.



(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.

      I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.



(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?

      All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    No IPR disclosures have been filed.



(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 has been clear strong consensus behind this document,
    showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.



(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.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(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.

idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits

tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt:
  Attempted to download draft-ietf-lisp- state...
  Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
  Attempted to download rfc8350 state...
  Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
  Attempted to download rfc8472 state...
  Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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

  No formal review is required.



(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?

  There are no normative references in unclear state.



(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.

  There are no downward normative references.



(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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
    of this document.



(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).

This document instruct IANA to create a new registry for the
LCAF type value indicating what kind of encoding follows the initial
  6 bytes of the canonical encoding. The initial content
of the newly created registry is well identified and allocations
procedure is a expert review with a required specification.
  I assume that the IESG can select an expert. For what is worth
  I can volunteer for the role.
The registry is named “LISP LCAF Type”, which
concisely express its content.




(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 expert review is required.



(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.

    The document does not contain anything written in a formal
    language, hence, no validation and/or check has been
    performed.