From nobody Tue Aug 24 22:31:26 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CE53A033F; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 22:31:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jD7ui9TAVA3n; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 22:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 232553A02F9; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 22:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id e186so29285109iof.12; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N497AA5xnAeEoBr3QgyhcDxp4FtWfhTPe9MC2TUVYT0=; b=D9rzrzImwBQTT+mZ6QgXll16bpVdnAxghOhtvC9yPJbb+ai4WZ+8npTRfnR/HOdMsW pzTCqQjuV2WpvDkNZSlEie+xWpHYMtPJ/S2VI2jS0TyqYG4dAw7w9KnP+3ETf1xJGn3M CU9bDSJqlKoa3isKbdqQXVOHNlAr4DY1LXOK72HJG8xW4Wrt1hyHzfc39xVKlpeX0BbV oJyctxjc8TGSc0pXUhxnl+76eHAekUWOStZIzVzlQzcUQeVe4w2omYvteRfJ7eBw+tTt XZijGsfUNkAShv1M8t02zijSKBpRLWSf0mv87A/WTOKcn3kaUcUq3DBI9LbUALPEgXva b0CA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N497AA5xnAeEoBr3QgyhcDxp4FtWfhTPe9MC2TUVYT0=; b=gdCC1mDpzngjeQeIA5potibdRdJzOlTbu9+9wdAcNP2bZLKLpQpjVqVxodLKEpCNMp iiOQXimg+iejVht48I+w0UIZfX9Rgg+b5v1L2ue90wkG6Or2xQXRuMMFL6lulVbQXdU3 aB5R0gMf3q9gMjtNpzXXQriH5znr6i3p1izUIDpqfetGjRmRv1z3W4wdvToiRivImc5N BEJojLy8rbbABbRS83kSzZOc+C8R5zcz56Lp/iXwEnWozKrIzJ2I6JNZ6eUB5scYOhLk 2wtBDtE8O5UGe6/ZJyRvLIwHYr/idDYgMKKHQl+QGM1/8sYeyftoqQY8A/psIbJYSrtc WZMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318/uFfyTFrWeTd0mh0UdOCIPNXgQgzYzqpnu6WLULEjgYsM/5W qpBOG2kBPQqpr3psTs4D8E8zZ6VhRcE84f09sdE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+f3gYwI2WPnJrCLvw0JTJLSCKk8m4YrgYeql2NVV19rqrAvYd+23ClV8XYvxIo70ao1O+ITrSZ4fJ768Cmrw= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f30b:: with SMTP id m11mr24477320ioh.0.1629869474908; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 22:31:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002001d794fe$d1085ff0$73191fd0$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: <002001d794fe$d1085ff0$73191fd0$@ndzh.com> From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:00:38 +0530 Message-ID: To: Susan Hares Cc: idr wg , draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000150ffb05ca5b8f6f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05, txt - Extended to 8/27/2021 - X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 05:31:25 -0000 --000000000000150ffb05ca5b8f6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Sue, I support adoption for SRv6 SID under the Flowspec V2. Some comments - - Expand SRv6, SID, on first use - Use the updated Requirements Language as per RFC 8174 - s/using a new type of Segment Routing Header (SRH)/using a new type of IPv6 extension header called Segment Routing Header (SRH)/ - :: in "LOC:FUNCT:ARGS::" is incorrect as per RFC8986 (and the RFC uses ARG instead of ARGS) - This text -- "These match capabilities of the features are only permitted to match when there is an accompanying SRH." conflicts with RFC 8754 [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.1] which allows SRv6 SID in the DA without SRH. - Section 5, there is no "Flow Spec IPv6 Component Types", RFC8956 asks to use the existing "Flow Spec Component Types" registry with IPv4 Name and IPv6 Name. Also, avoid suggesting the value 15 (best to ask for early allocation post-adoption). Thanks! Dhruv On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:04 PM Susan Hares wrote: > The WG Adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6 is extended to > 8/27/2021. > > > > The draft has been revised to indicate a dependence on flow specification > v2 encoding. Does this provide enough linkage? > > > > Cheers, Susan Hares > > > > *From:* Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 23, 2021 12:58 PM > *To:* idr@ietf.org; draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6@ietf.org > *Subject:* WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05,txt > > > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for > draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05.txt. > > > > I am missing 3 IPR statements (Zhenbin Li , Lei Li , and Lei Liu). > > These authors should send in their IPR statements in response to this > call. > > > > This draft is targeted for the V2 version of flow specification. > > Flow specification v2 draft will be discussed at an interim on 9/13/2021. > > > > If it is adopted, it will be developed as part of the v2 set of drafts. > > > > Please consider if: > > > > 1) if this draft is useful for networks, > > 2) if you wish to adopt this draft prior to adopting flow specification > v2. > > > > Cheerily, Susan Hares > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > --000000000000150ffb05ca5b8f6f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
= Hi Sue,

I support adoption for SRv6 SID under the Flowspec V2. Some= comments -

- Expand SRv6, SID, on first use
- Use the updated R= equirements Language as per RFC 8174
- s/using a new type of Segment Rou= ting Header (SRH)/using a new type of IPv6 extension header called Segment = Routing Header (SRH)/
- :: in "LOC:FUNCT:ARGS::" is incorrect= as per RFC8986 (and the RFC uses ARG instead of ARGS<= span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"">)
- This text -- "These match capabilities of t= he features are only permitted to match when there is an accompanying SRH.&= quot; conflicts with RFC 8754 [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#sec= tion-4.1] which allows SRv6 SID in the DA without SRH.
- Section 5,= there is no "Flow Spec IPv6 Component Types", RFC8956 asks to us= e the existing "Flow Spec Component Types" registry with IPv4 Nam= e and IPv6 Name. Also, avoid suggesting the value 15 (best to ask for early= allocation post-adoption).

Thanks!
Dhruv

=
On Thu= , Aug 19, 2021 at 7:04 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

The WG Adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6 is extended to 8/27/= 2021.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

The draft has been revised to indicat= e a dependence on flow specification v2 encoding. =C2=A0=C2=A0Does this pro= vide enough linkage?

=C2=A0

Cheers, Susan Hares <= u>

=C2=A0

From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com]
Sent: Friday, J= uly 23, 2021 12:58 PM
To: idr@ietf.org; draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6@ietf.org
S= ubject: WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05,txt =

=C2=A0

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-id= r-flowspec-srv6-05.txt.

=C2= =A0

I am missing 3 IPR statements (Zhenbin= Li , Lei Li , and Lei Liu).=C2=A0

These authors should send in their IPR statements in response to this call= .

=C2=A0

This draft is targeted for the V2 version of flow specificat= ion.=C2=A0

Flow specification v2 d= raft will be discussed at an interim on 9/13/2021.

=C2=A0

If it is ad= opted, it will be developed as part of the v2 set of drafts. =

=C2=A0

P= lease consider if:

=C2=A0

1) if this draft is useful for networks,

2) if you wish to adopt this draft p= rior to adopting flow specification v2.

=C2=A0

Cheerily, Susan Hares =

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

________________________= _______________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
--000000000000150ffb05ca5b8f6f--