IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Wed, 17 February 2021 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 E03A93A13F5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:09:25 -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 PgtBZ8MlfgE3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:09:24 -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 07A143A13F4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DgLlZ1mQ3z67pwY for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:05:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:09:20 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:09:20 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.205]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:09:15 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "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: Adb7DbR5Y6uqWQ3FTgWkA6IBSWvxMgJxOLFA
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 02:09:14 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D939DF1F1@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <012d01d6fb0d$b50468c0$1f0d3a40$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <012d01d6fb0d$b50468c0$1f0d3a40$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.185.22]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D939DF1F1DGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MSKlCu_8llGfC0ZgXzVoGxeZSDU>
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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 02:09:26 -0000

Hi All,

I support progressing this document to be published as Standard RFC.

Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)





From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
To: 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