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)