Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15

Alvaro Retana <> Mon, 27 April 2020 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C1B3A0B75; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 TYLf_2R__ROR; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA923A0B73; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r26so603187wmh.0; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:38:38 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wJXlfZQf8hNiHy3yDLkuUo0GA9zKitO87IIQkR0/iI4=; b=hCEXpcd4fRGZQaWeKgq/MYetDrUls24Pvxns7C76Z0YayxUMs7rHY8WYTl3+x5BojL 1W3OO1xX+aDmIKnko4+hY004EBBmdbTHp1yxUXqJDQPsfZJS24cpoSZb9eAy4B1tFxww +u5lwEIOacNoNWguHbtjCgvtVvS+AISuAaNRiagjEddXCOIr3YOuaXys6XC8nh+R61nz UtpTKo1lJ6oedmycDicgiafIId2h/t+T/0RJdEsXZk5O1Az+IUa/LbosMW+isZFkSIbo 4ZcafvIEQROrdWcMuPEOscISD8arGmii43GJ3LI1e2izpOrbKusQMMW91opaWjShg5Vt hWIQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wJXlfZQf8hNiHy3yDLkuUo0GA9zKitO87IIQkR0/iI4=; b=gL7oDBuRBgbbZqNHgFv0AZYZMLBOgKfaqAXb3sRGIrkquir+q400VajEZsg3Dr3Ui4 kr53E+fTJgPUihdoLn1OLfVfFWj94xOG59dLZ83ZhXOihuXzaUuLssM52f+Qpi4Rfj+l wkDPrqyR9XJxV8+vTd/LWAl63WHo8UmpDjrxRQMbg0Amah0YXLLls7OQYy9fpHZfNG5M xQtFmzrvO82BtJAzU5QJenbFtIjsg4nUsFq7PvBaeKSqVLxNQiJY8b9mFoI6/daUOY41 QfxoHUEAJyALaAjwz72tdv+B8+rdco0pMU40W3QeoHo6erDZSVwTU4fTxBEmZtiCCL3J MV8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYLgW8ZtZQuxszVDHLoB4fL8sMFbWPbijSJxOsEKnsnOx3G/QsI xcZvYAYNvBIMHlbadjElCxTPk2Ix/yfg/8kMYqY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKSrOewWNWUzGXfsM5H6Km0C49SqdPgmIggbLudnuvxnLOKO57HmorSk1Hi2VWEYBD49/64MnmmgB6PoNScORU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:28e:: with SMTP id 14mr818873wmk.79.1588023516540; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:38:35 +0000
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:38:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: John Scudder <>
Cc: "" <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15
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: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:38:40 -0000

On April 27, 2020 at 5:21:04 PM, John Scudder wrote:



> Regarding obsoleting other work, it makes sense to me that work that becomes
> de-facto obsolete as a result of 5512 being obsoleted, should also be
> obsoleted. Just seems like good document hygiene.
> I assume that does NOT imply that this document would need to provide
> replacements for the obsoleted specifications. As you say below, that’s a
> different track of work and can be pursued independently. We’re just talking
> about adding two more document numbers to the Obsoletes header, right?

Yes, correct -- and a sentence to the Abstract/Introduction.

I think that the decision to add those documents, or not, depends on
whether the effort to Update them (if there is interest) starts soon
or not (soon = by the time this document gets to IESG Evaluation).  As
it stands now (I haven't found rfc5566bis or rfc5640bis), and unless
there's explicit interest in starting work soon on *bis, it seem like
Obsoleting is the right answer.


> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > (1) Obsoleting other work
> >
> > This document deprecates the Encapsulation SAFI because it "has never
> > been used in production". What about other work that specifies the
> > use of the Encapsulation SAFI? Should they also be Obsoleted by this
> > document? [Yes, I know there was a long discussion on the list, which
> > resulted in the text in §1.4.]
> >
> > Both rfc5566 (mentioned in §1.4) and rfc5640 specify the use of the
> > Encapsulation SAFI. Is there interest in Updating those RFCs? If
> > not, then it seems like the easy thing to do is to Obsolete that work
> > with this document. If there is, then I agree with the text in §1.4
> > in that the effort would be out of scope of this document. In either
> > case, I think that §1.4 raises more questions than it answers and is
> > not needed in this document.
> >
> > John: As Shepherd, can you please ping the WG (you may have to reach
> > out to bess as well) about potential interest in Updating
> > rfc5566/rfc5640. I won't hold this document waiting for the
> > resolution, but having an idea of any interest would be nice.
> > Interest has been expressed for rfc5566bis [1], but didn't see
> > anything related to rfc5640. BTW, the mailing list contains
> > discussion about other IPsec-related drafts that use tunnel-encap; I'm
> > not sure of their relationship (if any) to rfc5566.