Re: [Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: (with COMMENT)

Susan Hares <> Mon, 02 November 2020 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB9D3A0D74; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V4nrrQ5fuDLT; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 21:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6355F3A0D73; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 21:13:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Barry Leiba' <>, 'The IESG' <>
Cc:,,, 'Jie Dong' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:13:02 -0500
Message-ID: <051801d6b0d6$d7591dc0$860b5940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI75icPLSlWCNVO201fpXxsWlbyxqjp4AvQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 201101-6, 11/01/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 05:13:21 -0000


My co-authors reminded me that the WG did not really come down strongly on the offset text.  They also felt that your proposal cleans up the text.  If Christoph can put out the document before the WG draft submission deadline, you may see it in the next version.  

Thanks for the great suggestions after a fresh read on the document. 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker [] 
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 10:32 AM
To: The IESG
Cc:;;; Jie Dong;;
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for clearing up my confusion on the DISCUSS point that I had, and for posting -18 with resolutions to that and my comments.

I’ll leave the remaining comment here for the record, leaving it for the editors to do what they think best.

   In the case Length minus Offset is 0 every address matches.  Length
   MUST always be in the range 0-128 and Length minus Offset MUST always
   be 0 or more, otherwise this component is malformed.

Is there actually value in allowing 129 ways to match every address (length=offset=0, length=offset=1, length=offset=87, and so on)?  If not, it seems less prone to error to say that length=offset=0 matches every address, and otherwise length MUST be greater than offset or the component is malformed.