Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

[[e-mail]]

Hi Sue, 
I support the adoption of this draft. 
Please find my answer for the questions with Sandy> below.


------------------Original------------------
From: SusanHares <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2022年08月17日 22:59
Subject: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/
During your discussion of this draft, please consider:
1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the
action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt
Figure 1 : Local Administrator
0                   1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Reserved           |C|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C = 0 – redirect original flow
C = 1 – redirect copy of original flow
This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955
And RFC8956.
Sandy> Yes. I agree.
2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature
in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/
See the following thread for a discussion of this in March:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/
Sandy> Yes. I agree.
3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?
Sandy> Yes. The draft will help the deployment of SRv6 networks.
Thanks,
Sandy
We’ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022.
Cheerily, Susan Hares