Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 20 September 2019 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E542B1200FB for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dXy4nuPmIjSA for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7419120132 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m15so8563087qtq.2 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3vmxER3oWRi+GOrENehxLOpid8cROQNtbH6AMqMffdw=; b=IswpPIUIeBood+pWGlzcNV1WJYx8u7jlbgZXDiR41UsBQRdqf6AOGoMARftb6SVV4F puzBOO6SzzxlO+6pKtX0IGMxMx0K9ATCe5tgpM0Nf0sZl2dnGgXbQMxqTIXYfKaxXuri WKnz9TaqpbzknlGdTY6BRCinuGLYsNsLCeTs31+d9Qk+0wyIYNeTtw/qc90hMPieCKK6 dxERdtyXF16L65l2WwIt14IliLP2Zi/u5BPImzlM36w9JNUQWhTbZ03uRXg9QDyJp5R0 zTs9317ON62zu2LTurG9ZbfX6U3FXZ1tkB6RJoO/24A9GbcElgs2zaawUhz1MyRxO9nx N/Kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3vmxER3oWRi+GOrENehxLOpid8cROQNtbH6AMqMffdw=; b=owDfhnI9axcVOa+DMO3ZtElipT12ZCsiOeVq+eKCAH6rNCzISbHNWDMvKekFKUYszu X6Sxhc/iKOdB2sRS0nXFaGd1+NV7iYeCZxpVJ/wNZUOzj6LKdMn32EzjFdzJTwZNMnY2 MI4alaoWzFKwhM2r/PJODDtNkA2LmbSHrmLZ1z/s4IIoJd5fT9UmyOaHxd9YnJd3Mw86 5kLXsbod8e1WHEM+yqLerqPEwualZWKqs9w8JGGI2DSH/U/6y81+wJn6qyqb++DD824L FjHFiTHhBs5xGoaIf+Yn+Oi5615DaHW3L0pfjX0bOGubRcqqzShN6OvBauZ1UOi+maLr P2Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5An6ip7Mgw9Q2Yp8SW7cIzSgb3mnh7ZzyyThjpWq1TofbEjCZ 3pDjFNjclI9CG7U8iSxaVmeWX5KArqwBOs8n3l9iQw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwOtY2CSbAtftXiGxVhr7LpQlaq2VSzlsK2HNI4bUHzRBDGjC/bK2kNkRs71p/Kgp+ROfVwFYJPxEUu6FKF+4Q=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2a3b:: with SMTP id c56mr3251942qtd.343.1568984720618; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <002101d56956$1c91d180$55b57480$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:05:05 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
Cc: Susan Hares <>,, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>,, "idr@ietf. org" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee47cd0592fbb868"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:05:24 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

As I just sent to Sue offline I see we have good progress with IPv6
flowspec in the industry:

Not sure why IETF can not catch up :)

But I see the same with BGP Optimal Route Reflection and other drafts. We
have shipping implementations and still who knows why lack of IETF RFC
publishing the spec.


On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 2:53 PM Alvaro Retana <>

> Hi!
> To be clear about what I would like to see…
> Background: IPv6 support for flowspec was brought up in the IESG when
> rfc5575 was in the process of being published (10 years ago!).  At that
> time the IESG was promised a separate draft.  We’re now back to the IESG
> with an IPv4-only document, and no clear plan to provide IPv6
> functionality; I say “no clear plan” because draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
> has been expired for over a year.
> I don’t want to go back to the IESG with rfc5575bis without a clear
> indication that the IPv6 work is moving along.  The minimum clear
> indication is a WGLC (of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6)…. It may not stop the
> IESG from strongly asking about IPv6, but at least we can show progress.
> At the other end of the spectrum, we could go back to the IESG with IPv4
> and IPv6 support simultaneously…either in the form of rfc5575bis supporting
> both, or two separate drafts.  My read of the e-mail archive is that there
> has been no interest/consensus from the WG of including IPv6 functionality
> in rfc5575bis.  I am fine with that.  If the WG wants to revisit that
> decision, I’m ok with that too.
> In the end, what I’m asking the WG is for the minimum step to show
> progress. I’m sure that John/Jie (Chair/Shepherd) can decide what the best
> way forward is.
> Thanks!
> Alvaro,
> On September 12, 2019 at 6:38:12 AM, Susan Hares ( wrote:
> <WG chair hat on>
> Question:
> I understand why this document only focuses on IPv4.  While the text
> points at draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6, that draft has been expired for over
> a year!  What is the plan to move that work forward?  It looks like there
> may already be implementations in place [4].
> Answer:
> The direction from the WG was to limit the draft to RFC5575 fixes.
> If you feel strongly, this can be queried to the WG again.
> <WG chair off>
> <author hat on>
> If WG agrees, this could be added to the draft.
> </author hat off>