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

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 20 September 2019 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD845120131; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOIGEmNX6Wvk; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AA612003F; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v8so6322345eds.2; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wnRpxHEPohQgVVhFUmSi6ZlanGWLnFnEwtRpSDvONvc=; b=HiSyR85xresZZFcA1nIFa1qOu3jQq+TqWGXjBoaN1QTOaCcXm9PqKl18ih/b+4ljWL iifTr4ZeRnIgOG/Gg2zEfpnrtAh5gqApzRjeSXBZELJRt0ENEAvpIFMtDgrTy+zW3teU 6jtvbuWBD5UHX9DFNgabwz+sL70xQbHpGFjeEpBPyhtX8T9H4tmqt920lHIBdpbU8BHq PpRH5NspGPJ5U/zO1WhGNF+oZ7vtOIyo1rcXt4WEddpen6DcDj5guPUx9vA54JwzC8SC rNfnFRI3is4wHDBIiTRf7P1UZlBaxNTK62uLaUySuy5zWXquPRVyn8jEbPpKkD7dSEel AAUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wnRpxHEPohQgVVhFUmSi6ZlanGWLnFnEwtRpSDvONvc=; b=PXrRNy2sJ1MUG8HljTs5BrC4MjGyH+zKnrZNo0YzUbFebJ5+afEIWpVw25emzdAGMU vx6fwHjBG5pHdc+d95bLptzjYM9/GPWJRaIk4oXqTg6rJEyvPgYdih+4lP54Zqcu+jlk mPS6/FeXpG0fFZquvejJVyC6wjik0+iS1xfqw/2S1/6o04dUChnBK0UdmjfNY4LP3m0Q XoLKrSlYUiI41XdLEbRjwU2utMjxDrEaWGsObjk90sUWJCv1Haf3+p1+DBXgSVKIcdF5 oig0a9FC+eeBBUwQp7T8SQTmESI7Uj18lRLUcQJ70Vn5xHobphG1/BiM1QHXOQVDa87T DMfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXqUMa0dbYHWCtTjGzs1VQPbEDuDOFeOTZhbpb7/yX6D3fxRzDK uBnVYwN9gDTYPWBf70eMDhfOzTOYQs5u66jCXzE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx11WRdHM6ElNr5h17/5z4kCwP5oxpVRkBb3ZaCUWnf2KB6/Lq8+1KNzkdGKltmuM+vG+emRt5duHanY4nscgs=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:e719:: with SMTP id a25mr21724397edn.258.1568983992843; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:12 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <002101d56956$1c91d180$55b57480$>
References: <> <> <002101d56956$1c91d180$55b57480$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:53:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Susan Hares <>,, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
Cc:, "idr@ietf. org" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d43dd0592fb8d52"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:53:17 -0000


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.



On September 12, 2019 at 6:38:12 AM, Susan Hares ( wrote:

<WG chair hat on>


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].


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>