Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Susan Hares <> Fri, 24 April 2020 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE763A0E4D; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 LI3590tQCsmE; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876093A0E4C; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)'" <>, 'The IESG' <>
References: <> <012201d61a40$66f798e0$34e6caa0$> <015f01d61a44$8958e110$9c0aa330$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:32:02 -0400
Message-ID: <001201d61a88$2d43c9a0$87cb5ce0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDH3wr1V03HAdKDI16OurUS47Z8OgHGzLzpAXJnGacDEIfMNKpzBCdw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200424-2, 04/24/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and 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: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 22:32:08 -0000


I will leave you to discuss the flow-specification v6 work with Alvaro. 

For my co-authors and the IDR-WG, we will move this process as fast as possible. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) [] 
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 5:46 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'The IESG'
Subject: Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


Thank you for the added pieces of information.

I can only respect the decision of the IDR WG to mandate 2 implementations before requesting publication. Impressive.

Nice to see that there are more than 1 IPv6 implementation of FlowSpec (I obviously knew about one). Thanks to your co-authors to have identified those implementations.

This should advance the v6 document within the WG and towards publication.

Let me check with the routing AD how we can proceed (per Alvaro's email) on opportunity to clear my DISCUSS and why not having consecutive RFC numbers.



-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares <>
Date: Friday, 24 April 2020 at 16:28
To: Eric Vyncke <>, 'The IESG' <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


    [author hat on] 
    My co-authors remind me that we have three manuals which indicate 4 implementations (2 Cisco, 1 Huawei,  1 Arbor Networks), and it is possible we have missed other flow specifications.  

    Arbor Networks Netscout

    [Author hat off] 

    [WG co-chair hat on] 
    Our usual checking involves getting the interoperability details which the IDR chairs (in my WG co-chair hat) has not received.  So, the bottom line is that this in process - but it is behind the v4.   

    The WG also has draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-11.txt (for intra-AS work) that updates the RFC5575bis has past WG LC. Large networks have deployed this as well, and wished it rolled into RFC5575bis.   

    The WG desired to get something out the door to correct the inaccuracies in RFC5575bis.    
    [WG co-chair hat on] 

    We are glad to take instruction from the IESG regarding these drafts.  

    Sue Hares 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Susan Hares [] 
    Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:58 AM
    To: 'Éric Vyncke'; 'The IESG'
    Subject: RE: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


    We have a rule in IDR to not submit this for publication until we have 2 implementations.   
    We do not have 2 vendors who will indicate the v6 support is deployed.  

    The original document (RFC5575) did not have v6, and the IESG asked the IDR group to work on the v6 draft. 
    The same authors have a v6 version of text in WG LC.   We've call for implementation reports and receive none on the v6. 

    If you would like to help us find v6 with Flow-specification deployments, we would be happy to forward the v6 version to the IESG. 
    Our long term game-plan was one document with v4 and v6 support. 

    Sue Hares 
    (author and IDR co-chair)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
    Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:50 AM
    To: The IESG
    Subject: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: Discuss

    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:


    Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is clear, easy to read (I appreciated the given examples).

    Alas, due to overload of work, I had only a quick browse through the document with specific focus points and found nothing EXCEPT why having two different documents ? One for IPv4 (with the core elements of the protocol) and one for
    IPv6 (with only the IPv6 specifics)... I am more than surprized to say the least... hence my DISCUSS...

    This blocking DISCUSS can easily be fixed: e.g., with a RFC Editor note to make a cluster of this document and draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 so that they are published together with adjacent RFC numbers. Merging the two documents would be preferred but I understand that this is more work (albeit a missed opportunity).

    Please find below a couple on non-blocking COMMENTs.

    I hope that this helps to improve the document,




    I also second Erik K.'s comment on non-TCP/UDP ports.

    Idr mailing list