Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]

Jeffrey Haas <> Thu, 28 November 2019 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D14212086C for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXXgczTTukbL for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:21:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEEA120119 for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:21:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 283E01E2F2; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:25:16 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
In-Reply-To: <016501d59dd2$e5458850$afd098f0$>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:21:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <016501d59dd2$e5458850$afd098f0$>
To: Sue Hares <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:21:11 -0000


> On Nov 18, 2019, at 12:41 AM, Susan Hares <> wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG Last call on draft-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt from [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]. 
> You can obtain the draft at:
> Consider in your review whether this draft: 
> 1)      Is compatible with draft-ietf-rfc5575bis-17.txt? 

Yes.  (Close enough.)  The current version of the draft is implementable.

> 2)      Whether the draft is useful for deployments of flow specification

It can be useful.

> 3)      Is this technology ready for deployment? 
> 4)      Is the write-up of this technology in draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect clearly written and ready for publication? 

Ready with minor issues, IMO:

Procedure-wise, there needs to be a bit more text covering cases about interactions with other traffic actions.  This was a known headache for similar drafts such as redirect-to-ip.  In particular, interaction with redirect-to-ip and redirect-to-vrf is needed.

The text "A single flowspec rule MUST NOT have more as one indirection-id per S-ID.  On a flowspec client the indirection-id with lowest S-ID MUST be imposed first for any given flowspec entry."  There's no procedure for what happens in error handling when you do have more than one of the same S-ID.  The text about the case for S-ID of 0 is also a bit ambiguous.  It feels like it's reading "there is no sequence", but what do you do when you then have ones that do?

A few IANA issues:
I see the type registry is currently registered with IANA (code point 0x09).  However, the sub-type registry is not established for some reason?
The ID-Type field likely needs its own IANA registry.  Values 1-5 are defined in this draft.

The flags field (one octet) currently has 3 bits reserved.  In the past, we've not done a registry for such cases (c.f. graceful restart) until we need to start carving out those reserved bits for future extensions.  I leave it to the chairs' opinion whether we want this a priori or not.

> Thank you for considering this draft. 
> Cheerily, Susan Hares 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list