Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 19:35 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 441C0131114; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 mcinMX3y2tTw; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 0B1FC130E27; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.195.103;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@pfrc.org>, 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
References: <289A4A15-675C-4C56-810D-B5809434A669@juniper.net> <7868BEF8-7B24-43BD-B36A-6C621D17D14A@pfrc.org> <C72DE5DD-3455-4787-A847-B8D29126ADA4@juniper.net> <6EEDC008-A5C1-4019-8D65-F2F43DA42901@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <6EEDC008-A5C1-4019-8D65-F2F43DA42901@pfrc.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:18:22 -0400
Message-ID: <025001d40d82$734f8d90$59eea8b0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0251_01D40D60.EC3DED90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQFoE1uam3hAh2fWMj0HzsgeNuWUewEwF6hKAr/DvzwC20gRL6UUhO0A
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 180626-4, 06/26/2018), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0J6gWHgBx33u8WpTa0B73mI6rIM>
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 19:35:31 -0000
Jeff: Since I'm not a co-author on the v6 version, I will ask that the v6 people spin their draft and get it read for WG LC. Sue From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:24 PM To: John Scudder Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports? John, On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:47 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote: On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <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. As I mentioned, I'm ambivalent. That said, I promise to have provided review by IETF in Montreal. I'd ask the WG chairs to push for refreshing of the v6 spec and a subsequent WGLC after we've advanced the bis and hopefully have incorporated -bis learnings into the v6 spec. -- Jeff (two birds, an iterative number of stones)
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… Justin Ryburn
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… John Scudder
- [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- im… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -… Jeffrey Haas