Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

To be clear about what I would like to see…

Background: IPv6 support for flowspec was brought up in the IESG when
rfc5575 was in the process of being published (10 years ago!).  At that
time the IESG was promised a separate draft.  We’re now back to the IESG
with an IPv4-only document, and no clear plan to provide IPv6
functionality; I say “no clear plan” because draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
has been expired for over a year.


I don’t want to go back to the IESG with rfc5575bis without a clear
indication that the IPv6 work is moving along.  The minimum clear
indication is a WGLC (of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6)…. It may not stop the
IESG from strongly asking about IPv6, but at least we can show progress.

At the other end of the spectrum, we could go back to the IESG with IPv4
and IPv6 support simultaneously…either in the form of rfc5575bis supporting
both, or two separate drafts.  My read of the e-mail archive is that there
has been no interest/consensus from the WG of including IPv6 functionality
in rfc5575bis.  I am fine with that.  If the WG wants to revisit that
decision, I’m ok with that too.

In the end, what I’m asking the WG is for the minimum step to show
progress. I’m sure that John/Jie (Chair/Shepherd) can decide what the best
way forward is.

Thanks!

Alvaro,


On September 12, 2019 at 6:38:12 AM, Susan Hares ([e-mail]) wrote:

<WG chair hat on>



Question:

I understand why this document only focuses on IPv4.  While the text points
at draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6, that draft has been expired for over a
year!  What is the plan to move that work forward?  It looks like there may
already be implementations in place [4].



Answer:

The direction from the WG was to limit the draft to RFC5575 fixes.

If you feel strongly, this can be queried to the WG again.



<WG chair off>

<author hat on>

If WG agrees, this could be added to the draft.

</author hat off>