Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 20 September 2019 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 58127120114; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 5yvgdnHTLKx3; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B8E120077; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.209.19.40] (mobile-166-170-27-166.mycingular.net [166.170.27.166]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D5071E2F3; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-97B17EFF-F6BB-4923-B0A1-D7AA6360F326
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESszDWR6JPi3Hiowq5QwrXmtT7o4sRmF8=STCakFo6T7veQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:28:05 -0400
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, idr-chairs@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <04CA4494-B58D-4F96-B4A6-9EF109153D06@pfrc.org>
References: <CAMMESsxHXUB_jQk7E9FkeNef2C7DDcbiEvnROFdbEjAVtMqcFA@mail.gmail.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CD15601E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <002101d56956$1c91d180$55b57480$@ndzh.com> <CAMMESszDWR6JPi3Hiowq5QwrXmtT7o4sRmF8=STCakFo6T7veQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KhU4cAWjTo1VS6WruHeetx7rAAM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:28:09 -0000

Alvaro,

In general much of the additional flow spec work was put on hold until 5575bis published. The work is clear and widely implemented. 

I’d suggest to the IESG that we get 5575bis published with the request that we move the v6 document to WGLC ASAP. 

Jeff

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 08:53, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> To be clear about what I would like to see…
> 
> Background: IPv6 support for flowspec was brought up in the IESG when rfc5575 was in the process of being published (10 years ago!).  At that time the IESG was promised a separate draft.  We’re now back to the IESG with an IPv4-only document, and no clear plan to provide IPv6 functionality; I say “no clear plan” because draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 has been expired for over a year.
> 
> 
> I don’t want to go back to the IESG with rfc5575bis without a clear indication that the IPv6 work is moving along.  The minimum clear indication is a WGLC (of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6)…. It may not stop the IESG from strongly asking about IPv6, but at least we can show progress.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum, we could go back to the IESG with IPv4 and IPv6 support simultaneously…either in the form of rfc5575bis supporting both, or two separate drafts.  My read of the e-mail archive is that there has been no interest/consensus from the WG of including IPv6 functionality in rfc5575bis.  I am fine with that.  If the WG wants to revisit that decision, I’m ok with that too.  
> 
> In the end, what I’m asking the WG is for the minimum step to show progress. I’m sure that John/Jie (Chair/Shepherd) can decide what the best way forward is.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro,
> 
> 
>> On September 12, 2019 at 6:38:12 AM, Susan Hares (shares@ndzh.com) wrote:
>> 
>> <WG chair hat on> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Question: 
>> 
>> I understand why this document only focuses on IPv4.  While the text points at draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6, that draft has been expired for over a year!  What is the plan to move that work forward?  It looks like there may already be implementations in place [4]..
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Answer: 
>> 
>> The direction from the WG was to limit the draft to RFC5575 fixes.   
>> 
>> If you feel strongly, this can be queried to the WG again.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> <WG chair off> 
>> 
>> <author hat on> 
>> 
>> If WG agrees, this could be added to the draft. 
>> 
>> </author hat off> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr