Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04

Job Snijders <> Sat, 14 October 2017 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781AE13304A for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tx56gWiEEg_a for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:07 -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 95B91132F2E for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t69so26206478wmt.2 for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2ObAjTRxUcHMkCvoe37ele1NzaiTf3Kf3mcfwhYLUC0=; b=IQSyEnJ9tM0wtyd1PDVi8MOtjkCqrz/fLp/Tw9WMZRionrewCSPTVrasYF8CDhX2LM HfDqo+gZax5p38mYDH+0V04Kxt8lyKkc7lLErup9ZCNfnM2UpXC/btd6i06waROZgLKI II1bDyMZTvxFnaYRwXwbNwCZhSC6BwI4oo+JZf+dghj2XpucN+uIe4kDFSLvYI4Z+WtK uuPQ7eeAadRSB/eI7ULu5+yxXZ8x3qUatLLjpUIRDv9A4I7ueZx8qMtZgnD0OH9yISs7 r9WwivEt1Xq3vm5HiBWRv9iNpO8V7KnmsyrXtF614rHd6wz99SAul2srHZMpTkfa1//H PGHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVYRID7BPgE3PCghnAfA9HbmT2HfGtgPDJlI8yjJ8ycwLy568ay CJIUiye5QVzy6L5azBWc6RxkWA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBCFFqGyAvoZqaIHMC1qlCaxVmsGCbU1fGrnU8PCReAIS6mZ/sv1ZngoyYoyI1A2sB3qjExiw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w38mr6347056eda.191.1507995244609; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:f52b:e01b:8eba:2a82]) by with ESMTPSA id 34sm2634103eds.23.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:34:02 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
To: John Scudder <>
Message-ID: <20171014153402.GY19142@Vurt.local>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:34:09 -0000

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:39:04PM -0400, John Scudder wrote:
> A working group last call has been requested for
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04. Please reply to the list with your
> comments. As usual note we cannot advance the draft without
> participation from the group. Please get your comments in before
> October 20, 2017.
> Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed. 

I read the document and support publication.

Some comments: 

s/automate of inter-domain/automate inter-domain/
s/application which control/applications which control/
s/Some of deployments of these/Some deployments of these/

I see use of the strings 'flowspec', 'flow-spec' and 'flow spec'; which
one is the preferred one to use? :)

section 4.2.3
OLD:  The bits lt, gt, and eq can be combined to produce "less or
       equal", "greater or equal", and inequality values.
NEW:  The bits lt, gt, and eq can be combined to produce common
      relational operators such as "less or equal", "greater or equal",
      and "not equal to".

section 5.1:
    I have trouble parsing: "For IP prefix values (IP destination and source
    prefix) precedence is given to the lowest IP value of the common prefix

    If a packet destined for is covered by a rule for
    destination and a rule covering destination -
    the rule would 'win' because '' is a lower IP

    Another question, and I realise this is a big ask: Is it possible to
    replace the pseudocode with an actual code example? Pseudo languages
    tend to not follow any specific set of rules and therefor oftentimes
    are hard to read. Awk, lua, python, ruby, perl, or really anything
    that actually can be compiled and inspected would be better than
    pseudocode. I've been part of discussions where we tried to
    deconstruct the pseudocode author's intentions and rules of

Section 13: remove 'Note: Any original author...' ?

This concludes my review, thank you for your work on this document.

Kind regards,