Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25.txt

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Thu, 21 May 2020 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
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 BBA5B3A0771; Wed, 20 May 2020 23:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tix.at
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 9FYgiPVdxf8S; Wed, 20 May 2020 23:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6163A0766; Wed, 20 May 2020 23:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=X0jLkpUE/pK8motbFlbGrjOiaKLTb/wHlQgcxy/QHG4=; b=qHNQHoR+2XLzm2zV7iCiOBkABQ rGFks29hgZ+XJpbzXMIpfpD418nydw04eAhqC9AnmnmyPOs42HpTGKuj624pFSQ+kf96zOecuy8+2 kUChctHL2eMjVDeJ9juRfwDFWRJ/nEuukSU5rvQcgrKMdgngXTows1QZLpfHpUardAgRFvrqYZYTZ yGu7XBXIw9gsmz3x5FaWlkXFo1EwT+6Gpr+BpCil5Px+eNzJkQbyPJfI5o3R3VSZEfo8A9Uuiepe3 eqU3sUO4BnIxBX9SCCN5NIY/GauzqCOMoOXPEX5rU9v5YmTfGpEbAb8ZjUauCueTXp5uKOQWNi9gC 2kJBYqnQ==;
Received: from 80-110-113-91.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.113.91] helo=[192.168.66.207]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1jbf9V-000GW7-Gw; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:58:02 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <9CD43C6D-2D9C-4946-96E3-0472CB9889B0@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1FC4F33F-AEB5-43EE-BB5C-FF28B351EBB9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 08:57:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <159004379128.6493.1306752433836371255@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
References: <159004379128.6493.1306752433836371255@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Thu, 21 May 2020 08:58:01 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ze3ZUHAuBRAiIiUa0dMVUOv1LF4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25.txt
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, 21 May 2020 06:58:10 -0000

Hi,

I just uploaded a revision of the draft that contains the changes from the latest IANA and IESG reviews, and IDR poll:

*) Changed the SHOULD / MUST constructs to MUST / MUST (this was the conclusion of the poll on that question)

*) Changed the section in the IANA considerations regarding the YANG iana-routing-types: request IANA to also change the names of the ENUMS.

Cheers

Christoph

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



> On 21.05.2020, at 08:49, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
>        Authors         : Christoph Loibl
>                          Susan Hares
>                          Robert Raszuk
>                          Danny McPherson
>                          Martin Bacher
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25.txt
> 	Pages           : 39
> 	Date            : 2020-05-20
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer
>   Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used
>   to distribute traffic Flow Specifications.  This allows the routing
>   system to propagate information regarding more specific components of
>   the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix.
> 
>   It also specifies BGP Extended Community encoding formats, that can
>   be used to propagate Traffic Filtering Actions along with the Flow
>   Specification NLRI.  Those Traffic Filtering Actions encode actions a
>   routing system can take if the packet matches the Flow Specification.
> 
>   Additionally, it defines two applications of that encoding format:
>   one that can be used to automate inter-domain coordination of traffic
>   filtering, such as what is required in order to mitigate
>   (distributed) denial-of-service attacks, and a second application to
>   provide traffic filtering in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN service.
>   Other applications (e.g. centralized control of traffic in a SDN or
>   NFV context) are also possible.  Other documents may specify Flow
>   Specification extensions.
> 
>   The information is carried via BGP, thereby reusing protocol
>   algorithms, operational experience, and administrative processes such
>   as inter-provider peering agreements.
> 
>   This document obsoletes both RFC5575 and RFC7674.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr