Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-haas-flowspec-capability-bits - Extended till 5/18/21

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 04 May 2021 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 84F1B3A198E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 16:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 Fv9sSdtBCy6w for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 DBE103A198D for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id v5so73658ljg.12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wIWypejwB0Xiyju+8Nx/vSMZH4/noilj86RXLtsJUps=; b=Nj6QB2TrgvXJcZuYUsjXzOV1/0Fwi6rWxAh8PDXChzU3JukzcqqI9eG/kKTs+8fdAx vTJzuDnVGGslHt5NRGjUWjrxdrwTuYEQOfNca3OIj49MRhVkzL9XfnYSF1YQrryY3Cc9 WqhtL8cqhOeMTz6XoRFClanMnA9X5nuL76F2cajTB9bTiCdjbcRYTjRjE6JRI0GQ9095 VuUuH3dUHlPBEIoOBZCS28ytDz/mRa3GxoYUWyCyFPdB3uke/kbWUNbT51UqYg7J+UU+ 5LlznECOpcdf9jhqv0XyX4dqil25sM450h1//o9nYvAiIYiLU2QtRJRHqasjCIFz7z5r Ac/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wIWypejwB0Xiyju+8Nx/vSMZH4/noilj86RXLtsJUps=; b=DR+t/uaG0uI7MGhrtEPVwFZUfyTWXyQpHF5NcwioDIT+0ZBL7TD22pNNvlaXjgHu57 0xLjGByt1gLCK+agaPmN/SjkPWvTkIgSF8HmLQe9ycUgEMKn4VBIdIMikogYH4mnSTaF A1E76w7Sn6RuuB86Jbw8zFfo6oWEagFVElhCGbA1QR7vLgAXR1u92Xn9UULJ/4kPwBR4 OH7NUsggbskHd9e0Z2ZNtv2t5FDe3CARihVCi7oLbCmeJIRFIUhHDpJ7Ql6MbBoepqxa DdJRxSkTCkQ+qu0WUtajRJOBxfQn5+jIxyzXs9JuncWwzr4H68BeSh8y9eRdtdTkfmN8 4pPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531CC60YGpdSPRSXDkLWeqL8mj9Snluak5cR1V2UBmFkkIVOSn3y KmLjD43WcwHe1DxHHfFLhtlIePM6FeKjL95x5qH+Tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw08A0Zyu9XRBWSiLIe0gv0x0A1kx+DnTyK+sqS+C7tcyvdUVGkLdLUoqN8exkcFY5hgBb0r3T8JfJ1IfdmTh0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1139:: with SMTP id e25mr19425538ljo.318.1620170357643; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <36E42E9A-96B4-4859-94E1-3A7152288FA9@arrcus.com>
In-Reply-To: <36E42E9A-96B4-4859-94E1-3A7152288FA9@arrcus.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 01:19:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEDWDnzr=AeBM3br6s9O0Tw6saeeDfxsTkGFCEJ2dVHUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a4adf405c1894e85"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KkOBmnmZu70Czvs-zGafGdG3jMU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-haas-flowspec-capability-bits - Extended till 5/18/21
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: Tue, 04 May 2021 23:19:27 -0000

Hi Keyur, WG

I think we need more clarity on question #2. As stated it is ambiguous.

> 2) Do you think we should do this with Flow Specification v1 or should we
do this instead of Flow Specification v2?

Adding capabilities is not required for current operation of FlowSpec v1.

Yes no capabilities there makes it more difficult to add new stuff to v1
and that is why the general agreement was to consider going v2.

So the questions IMO should be:

*Do you as an IDR WG member realize that if we add those to FlowSpec v1 we
may delay or drop FlowSpec v2 all together ? *

And with that as it has been already stated on the list it may break some
current deployments for v1 as well not provide sufficient flexibility which
could come native with FlowSpec v2.

Many thx,
Robert.



On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:10 AM Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> It seems like that the draft discussion is still going on and hasn't
> concluded. The chairs have decided to extend the working group adoption
> call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haas-flowspec-capability-bits
> for 2 more weeks till 5/18/21.
>
> We like to have a clear answer on the following questions:
>
> 1) Is this document clear about the proposal?
>
> 2) Do you think we should do this with Flow Specification v1 or should we
> do this instead of Flow Specification v2?
>
> 3) Will this help operational networks?
>
> Best Regards,
> Keyur
>
> On 3/30/21, 6:33 AM, "Idr on behalf of Susan Hares" <idr-bounces@ietf.org
> on behalf of shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>     This is a Working Group adoption call for
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haas-flowspec-capability-bits
>
>     The draft suggests a mechanism to address our incremental deployment
> issues
>     for BGP Flowspec.
>
>     As you discuss this mechanism, there are 3 questions to consider:
>
>     1) Is this document clear about the proposal?
>
>     2) Do you think we should do this with Flow Specification v2?
>     Or should we do this instead of Flow Specification v2?
>
>     3) Will this help operational networks?
>
>     Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idr mailing list
>     Idr@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>