IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?

John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Tue, 26 June 2018 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
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 66FAF1310AE; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=juniper.net
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 Ty5nJEMDguqF; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FAB130E08; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5QHj6Yd000390; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:47:27 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=oWTWC+86hmtDT+TreD/UzKSeTR4KRBNe9yTGTSBf07g=; b=raN5xNeCfF/Httm1z2U+EIb84kJjfGN8PpBbWNE2pCzTB8fpZkhZ+R7GkCeyUJKWumHG RxB+9y2PTp+zdm/qbsX35mtUB4dukyXof3Dacu+nn3zDBtxtRPGRo49Nz6i0mAqAuq82 /5B1EHR+J57wLa4wWpUwlN+I0uxo9MUG2aG0bXcbrhQ4KA7V7b8D6UUczhnJwq+gCv+g F555NpaOF8KDzMltyWNqms2qVhDctQVGYtl6oXP8PVRlkYKYLDzAG65I3FK9fVdWpxEF /XOn0Roc0BW6JIt+3JD1KEJxjMxcTfa1E/sTzaqkvKM6nj1r6fvOYxQEhT/mxOPqL/dP wQ==
Received: from nam05-dm3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam05lp0117.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.117]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jupcsret3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:47:27 -0700
Received: from SN6PR05MB4560.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.75.146) by SN6PR05MB4080.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.66.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.906.15; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:47:25 +0000
Received: from SN6PR05MB4560.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b890:b360:69e5:7fd2]) by SN6PR05MB4560.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b890:b360:69e5:7fd2%4]) with mapi id 15.20.0863.016; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:47:25 +0000
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?
Thread-Index: AQHUDVs7P4zbFO6NU0uEu4FcFMPLC6RyniKAgAAyogA=
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:47:25 +0000
Message-ID: <C72DE5DD-3455-4787-A847-B8D29126ADA4@juniper.net>
References: <289A4A15-675C-4C56-810D-B5809434A669@juniper.net> <7868BEF8-7B24-43BD-B36A-6C621D17D14A@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7868BEF8-7B24-43BD-B36A-6C621D17D14A@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN6PR05MB4080; 7:PtfWF42CjW0XfYB+8/xftZ7tG1HqJAoX5d0/Dl/7IDXoUSjDcF4Jv+m9z9lvEPb6M7P/RvXnAcBBRSai0YTxNh81Vqbf5lIx+2pGiWZ2cWEZEk9SynC5gCnqCFyNgT5nCHovRvtXOKVPWdoPg9jT2eC+Vqd0ofby1vrkiySl7wJ7fDbmETWn7CoCP/63m7cdkoCHkzbrhkGrLig39KtLbvxmXw9heV0N1uFlh6OPmFiAvR3cwhjAfdmkkWU98nPZ
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ceb990b0-b627-4215-e7ad-08d5db8ce07e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(8989117)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990107)(5600026)(711020)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4080;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB4080:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR05MB4080D460B1ACFFD12004A7A0AA490@SN6PR05MB4080.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(20558992708506)(100405760836317);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4080; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4080;
x-forefront-prvs: 071518EF63
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(97736004)(76176011)(236005)(4326008)(7736002)(5660300001)(2900100001)(53936002)(25786009)(6506007)(6436002)(36756003)(53546011)(6916009)(316002)(66066001)(54906003)(6116002)(3846002)(6246003)(82746002)(2906002)(2616005)(68736007)(11346002)(8676002)(6512007)(476003)(486006)(8936002)(26005)(86362001)(54896002)(33656002)(229853002)(5250100002)(105586002)(106356001)(6486002)(446003)(186003)(14454004)(81156014)(102836004)(478600001)(83716003)(99286004)(14444005)(256004)(81166006)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4080; H:SN6PR05MB4560.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /blyclWi2LP2UFTgWo5lZC4KgwUFJ21b0DLdL09O5ErwRM1YfuMCMYsX9rTnzQDfi2XS7BKFBHGQ1lKwTcC71pGqddgsHkWips/hajrGOtUwCuTnVd9XGbi7cfaNCmcZUQ6zRk85Hj/9HdZWmJtS5ZBNrwEvOSU61LcYUzVgLpBOZ1DXnOEvxtB4k46VKtV+MhsFQ8rUanWcehaZQ32xjNbVVcdKltZdXyEWofxt+hRuyM48fNe/sa3M+BMJNnKKbZKXiF6wM114xNLca+0pNHijTZtRYtkJyCGtJCk/ESVP7EYEkc78SsAq0rTjbPFkGqK5GzPPX68izCJ6D8kFRGN9uwN3OfS6N/q6a4laJdg=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C72DE5DD34554787A847B8D29126ADA4junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ceb990b0-b627-4215-e7ad-08d5db8ce07e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jun 2018 17:47:25.0329 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB4080
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-06-26_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806260200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-kV3pOEqzT9qq4l7SSyWwKstiFI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:47:30 -0000

Jeff,

On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:

An open point on the mailing list though has been whether the ipv6 flowspec work should be merged in.  See prior comments from Sue.

I'm personally ambivalent about doing that bit of merge work, but it's a good fit as long as the Working Group doesn't feel it's an issue to encumber the update to the core spec with the IPv6 stuff which is optional.  But if so, we'd need to see a merge to continue.

Unless I've missed it, there hasn't been an outcry from the WG to roll the work in. On the balance, my take (with co-chair propeller beanie on) is that since we are so far along with progressing 5575bis, and as Christop previously has pointed out, the original scope was set to be "clarification" and not more, we shouldn't hold it up further.

This is not to say the work isn't important or relevant, just that we have a doc pretty much ready for publication, respinning it now is maybe not the best use of anyone's time.

All that said, if I've missed discussion suggesting the WG *does* have consensus to re-open 5575bis (or that the consensus is ambiguous) I'm open to correction.

Thanks,

--John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email