IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <liyizhou@huawei.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 1AE493A1F8B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 19:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zkoNkEfwEKi9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 19:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC1B3A1F88 for <idr@ietf.Org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 19:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Dh16T2T0tz67pqy for <idr@ietf.Org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:54:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) by fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 04:58:01 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:57:59 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:57:59 +0800
From: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
To: "idr@ietf.Org" <idr@ietf.Org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
Thread-Index: AdcFqb2RY6uqWQ3FTgWkA6IBSWvxMg==
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:57:59 +0000
Message-ID: <d0506cebebf84d619d8bc47501e1dcc0@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.98.176]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_d0506cebebf84d619d8bc47501e1dcc0huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/14FA1yWtLJIGrslcrSh7DC5r6Dg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:58:09 -0000

Hi,

I would like to agree with Greg's comment to encourage the inclusion of GENEVE as tunnel type in the document.

Donald's answers to the questions look fine to me.

Cheers,
Yizhou


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

Greetings:

This begins a modified draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12.txt.

It is a modified WG LC because:
1) the WG still has to discussion where we make the cutoff for flow-specification v2,
2) there are no implementation for this WG LC

This WG LC should examine the following things:

1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
    the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of the draft)?

2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for standardization?

3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
 draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?

4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?

Cheerily, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email