Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 A1592120120 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MNZ7Ooz7Qj2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 D98BD120058 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.20.155;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Christoph Loibl'" <c@tix.at>
Cc: "'idr wg'" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <015d01d582c4$388e04d0$a9aa0e70$@ndzh.com> <A3C0954F-7804-4121-8D0B-9DC497ED6EA9@tix.at>
In-Reply-To: <A3C0954F-7804-4121-8D0B-9DC497ED6EA9@tix.at>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:10:10 -0400
Message-ID: <008e01d58fec$870715e0$951541a0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLU+VkAtFReJj7nWCeYrGDVWw8d8wJYIU/upWMk8nA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 191029-0, 10/29/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TtsV5sDe4VhwgFZtWKn8o73khyg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)
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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:10:18 -0000

Christoph: 
<WG member hat on, individual contributor>
I agree with your review of the title. 

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Loibl [mailto:c@tix.at] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call
(10/14 to 10/28/2019)

I know, I am very late with my support. I was unable to read the latest
version of the document till now. 

I fully support the adoption (this happened already I know).

However, one thing I want to mention:

The technology described in the document is not really related to BGP
Flowspec and even the title has been changed in the meantime:

	from
	BGP FlowSpec Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-00)
	to
	BGP Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-05)

I recommend using a different working-title for the draft as well (currently
draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd / draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-rpd) to avoid confusion
with other flowspec related work in IDR (ie. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd-00)

Cheers Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 14.10.2019, at 21:18, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt

> (10/14 to 10/28/2019).  You can access the draft at: 
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd/
>  
> In your discussion regarding this draft consider if:
>  
> 1)      Passing extended policy in BGP  is useful,
> 2)      Passing policy in wide community atom is a technical sound
mechanism,
> 3)      A deployment need exists for this technology. 
>  
>  
> Susan Hares
> Co-chair and shepherd 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr