Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05,txt

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun,

    Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
    My responses are inline below with [HC].

Is it more general to define one new “field type”, for example, “100” to represent to match “SID’s LOC:FUNC:ARGS” in component type “TBD2”,  also the whole SID, then there is no necessary to define component type “TBD1”?
[HC]: You are right. A new “field type” can be defined to match “SID’s LOC:FUNC:ARGS” in component type “TBD2”. This will eliminate component type “TBD1”. We will update the draft accordingly.

And, it’s encoding follows Flowspec b1, how can it be developed as part of v2 drafts? Should the encoding be changed to follow the v2 specification?
[HC]: It seems that BGP Flow Specification v2 is encapsulated in a different NLRI which encapsulates previous flow specification v1 information.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> on behalf of Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 12:22 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: idr <[e-mail]>
Subject: WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05,txt

Hi, Authors:

Is it more general to define one new “field type”, for example, “100” to represent to match “SID’s LOC:FUNC:ARGS” in component type “TBD2”,  also the whole SID, then there is no necessary to define component type “TBD1”?



And, it’s encoding follows Flowspec b1, how can it be developed as part of v2 drafts? Should the encoding be changed to follow the v2 specification?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom



>
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 12:57 PM
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: WG adoption call - draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05,txt
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-05.txt.
>
> I am missing 3 IPR statements (Zhenbin Li , Lei Li , and Lei Liu).
> These authors should send in their IPR statements in response to this call