Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12

Dear All,
I've reviewed the draft. I find it well-written and proposing a good
practical solution to the very common case in L3 overlay networks. I
particularly appreciate the coverage of several tunneling protocols that
the draft provides. I've noticed that Geneve protocol (RFC 8926
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8926/>) is not listed. As a
non-blocking comment, perhaps the case for Geneve can be added to the
document.
In conclusion, I support progressing this document to its publication as
Standard RFC.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:52 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

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