Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12

Hi Sue

I support publication of this document as a standard RFC.

Since this document supports GRE, IP in IP and L2TPv3, even though the
title states NVO3 overlays, should this draft really include all tunnel
types described in tunnel-encap-22 that would be applicable to flow spec
dissemination. If so the then maybe removal of NVO3 in the draft name and
change to tunneled traffic maybe appropriate.

1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with

    the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of
the draft)?

 Yes

2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for
standardization?

 Yes

3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by

 draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?

 Yes.  I think it is very important for this document to support the tunnel
encap draft NVO overlay encapsulations.

4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
I don’t think so.  As we are proceeding with modified WG LC without any
implementations i think in that light we can proceed to publish and not
wait for flow spec v2.  At that time we can always to an bis update if
needed to the publication as necessary.

Thank you

Gyan

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:37 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Sue,
>
>
>
> I’ve reviewed this document and support its publication as standard RFC.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
> *To:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology
> only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
>
>
>
> Greetings:
>
>
>
> This begins a modified draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12.txt.
>
>
>
> It is a modified WG LC because:
>
> 1) the WG still has to discussion where we make the cutoff for
> flow-specification v2,
>
> 2) there are no implementation for this WG LC
>
>
>
> This WG LC should examine the following things:
>
>
>
> 1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
>
>     the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of
> the draft)?
>
>
>
> 2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for
> standardization?
>
>
>
> 3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
>
>  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?
>
>
>
> 4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD

Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).