Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection at the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Edge
draft-ietf-trill-active-active-connection-prob-07

[Ballot discuss]
Several ADs have requested that there be some serious thought given to security considerations in active-active scenarios.  I think this is a reasonable request.  I'm raising this as a DISCUSS because I would like the working group to consider this before the document advances.

[Ballot comment]
I second Adrian's point, the same one made in the SecDir review.  While individual solutions may have specific security concerns or risks, I would think that there are some risks that would broadly apply to ant solution that should be described here and perhaps even setting security requirements for any solution that follows.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04939.html

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here are
some points you may want to discuss with your document shepherd and
responsible AD.

---

  CE - As in [CMT], Classic Ethernet device (end station or bridge).
  The device can be either physical or virtual equipment.

1. [CMT] has "Classical Ethernet device"
2. I am aware of World Acronym Depletion (WAD) [5513], but do you think
  it is advisable to use "CE" when that abbreviation has such a well-
  known meaning that shows on figures in a way that is highly similar
  to the positioning of your CE on your figures?

---

As a problem statement, I feel you are dodging an issue when you write

  LAALP is usually a proprietary facility whose implementation varies
  by vendor. So, to be sure the LAALP operations successfully across a
  group of edge RBridges, those edge RBridges will almost always have
  to be from the same vendor. In order to have a common understanding
  of active-active connection scenarios, the assumptions in Section 2.1
  are made about the characteristics of the LAALP and edge group of
  RBridges.

and

  Other than the applicable characteristics above, the internals of an
  LAALP are out of scope for TRILL. 

Shouldn't you actually be raising this as a missing component in the
toolset? A standardised LAALP would increase the flexibility and utility
of TRILL in a multi-vendor environment. Your document could briefly
explain how initial deployments will be proprietary, describe the
limitations, state that a standardised LAALP would be beneficial, and
briefly outline what such a protocol might look like (presumably built
on MC-LAG) and how it needs to differ from existing offerings.

You already have lots of this material, but it seems you are actively
discouraging work on this topic. I can see that this might be out of
scope for the current TRILL charter, and whether someone comes along
later to address the requirements is for the future, but you seem to be
pushing a deployment scenario where a CE can only be attached to an
edge RBridge from the same vendor.

---

I find section 5 disappointing! Although (of course) solution-specific
security issues can only be documented in the solution documents, I
should think that the active-active model introduces some interesting
security issues. If the new function/architecture genuinely introduces
no issues or security associations, then that is fine: I am just
surprised by the fact.

---

It would be nice, IMHO, if this document also described the
manageability requirements to support active-active. Are there changes
to OAM? How does one find out which edge RBridge is carrying which flow?
What needs to be configured/inspected at the CE and the edge RBridge?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-active-active-connection-prob-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active TRILL Edge) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active TRILL Edge'
  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 2014-07-14. 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


  The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
  protocol provides support for flow level multi-pathing with rapid
  failover for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks
  with arbitrary topology. Active-active at the TRILL edge is the
  extension of these characteristics to end stations that are multiply
  connected to a TRILL campus. This informational document discusses
  the high level problems and goals when providing active-active
  connection at the TRILL edge.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-active-active-connection-prob/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-active-active-connection-prob/ballot/


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

(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 is an Informational document, as indicated in the title page
  headers, that discusses the TRILL active-active edge and problems
  that may need to be overcome. It contains no protocol
  specifications.

(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:

  The TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol
  provides support for flow level multi-pathing with rapid failover
  for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks with
  arbitrary topology. Active-active at the TRILL edge is the
  extension of these characteristics to end stations that are
  multiply connected to a TRILL campus. This informational document
  discusses the high level problems and goals when providing
  active-active connection at the TRILL edge.

Working Group Summary:

  There was broad working group consensus that this document
  addresses and in favor of its publication as an Informational RFC.

Document Quality:

  This document is of good quality. A significant number of vendors
  indicated that the active-active problem described in this document
  is of high importance to their customers and they plan to implement
  a solution.

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd.

  Both before an after declaration of WG consensus, the Shepherd
  carfully reveiwed the document and made a number of minor
  suggestions that have been incorporated.

(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?

  As an already well reviewed informational document in the TRILL
  area, I do not feel that any such special extra 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?

  No special concerns or 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.

  Yes.

(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 against this draft.

(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 is a broad consensus in the WG that active-active is, along
  with OAM, one of the two most urgent and important areas for the WG
  to address and there is a broad consensus, based on both meetings
  and the mailing list, that this document is a reasonable
  presentation of the problem and goals for a solution.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?

  No.

(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).

  None.

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

  No such formal review 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?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
    3967)?

  No, although there is one normative reference to a non-IETF standard
  (ISO/IEC 10589:2002).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs?

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document.

  This document requires no IANA actions.

(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.

  This document creates no new IANA registries.

(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.

  None of this document is written in any such formal language.