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

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 24 April 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F693A1074; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 vjhXBnQAEzXH; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11DAE3A1064; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x17so11161222wrt.5; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:18 -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=vLcBUIMfgsnl7CAj+d/SxAFNvzAenMHgS79Tn1Vlo4o=; b=jTb9V6kjKGU+PT6YegsevMihFcy/A7g58gDD6/hMhmcDQNiYJCCWfAz85Rb3ivoA2H j3GDLcnDSfA/3DiaKp6SiWd4Plc+9TcRuDMGG6xFKrKZ8e9IohY0QFOlFvD34uxzdNX9 lPtQcibelTgBsyAaWwPi/xHgtp4cVgdR3bjxgFxSpujg0JIS0RvHPsuDqvflkflGnIxJ NykFS4HeckLpIUAOZX+TtHTn1jM6ER3chnvRWgjBKIMR++dAD6OVpem8GohmMhAX2R30 Vqq5h9p/WzUgu1fbjM1pLsReKrnFquJ5ntlzDp8RCV7075rQa8QhvIDBHli7vRcdbUAj L5+A==
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=vLcBUIMfgsnl7CAj+d/SxAFNvzAenMHgS79Tn1Vlo4o=; b=EDkCnwgQFVeK2xEN8EWr7Qsgdmn/kHQZfIm/WcSk7pPIZlc87E2ds6+Lrg8ho7O5Qb wMgsz0YDI7YnmeQFSojMjqGCExzOUr7zWLbizbTBFvO4RMlFu2XRBSe3yk5lOgaE3dgd +aql3zWTxms+FjpzBmEm4BdoVgIzCqKTNjCpNAuzCikSjKvAxeBM/RXn4bAe9xdcAdqv 3H2LRc/7XnuSNo5x8DoWrNw/fJlVsmDgUggZ+j5+dzW3s2/dhNyrcfiWfjPV2pMRGKZA 3kNS6j3qNtiU9gcAhBcKPor+CFYBBy6CpAb5QHoLhTPkkofGWZtb29z30T7EgLu0tdJQ bBYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubFXHocF4FZmny40N+Jxmh3wW5lSZOXk0JyrGwlSysI29tICsW0 yA8ayLMXPgZ13Hb77YSLmG2kWzI2cotXvJnDKSYRLKWb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIaAsCeyyCFd/AloJ3230oyuJ4QOd7BEVZwb1UIDj4wGYlb70ISWhSg1SOESrXkkhXnGBShabvFZ9aCl1tJ5QE=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9168:: with SMTP id j95mr11780473wrj.145.1587750077206; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:16 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:41:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <>, Éric Vyncke <>, The IESG <>
Cc:,, Jie Dong <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 17:41:26 -0000



I appreciate all your hard work on making sure that IPv6 is always considered.

However, I disagree with your request.

(1) IPv6 has been considered. The WG has completed the work on FlowSpec for
    IPv6 — it is just waiting for implementation reports. [Sue already updated
    the tracking page. [1]]

(2) By requiring joint publication, you are effectively overturning the WG
    consensus to clean rfc5575 up and leave new functionality to new
    documents. As Sue already mentioned, the IPv6 functionality is not the
    only document that depends on this base — so we would be delaying
    that publication too (because of the Normative reference).

(3) This document already contains a reference to the IPv6 document. That will
    be more effective than requiring adjacent RFC numbers. It is not always
    the case where documents in the same cluster receive adjacent RFC numbers.

(4) This request is not aligned with the DISCUSS Criteria [2].

Having said all that, I am willing to prioritize my review of the IPv6
document (when the WG requests publication), and would not oppose a
request to the RFC Editor for expedited processing in order to get an
RFC number assigned before rfc5575bis is published.  I think this is
reasonable considering the time it may take the document to reach





On April 24, 2020 at 9:50:24 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
( wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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).