Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-19, reverting to consensus text on opaque typed NLRI

Christoph Loibl <> Tue, 10 March 2020 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80C33A0EA6 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6dCDr8GFfks for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE1C3A0EB8 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1jBayF-0002o2-Ec; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:14:42 +0100
From: Christoph Loibl <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E75B48F6-9373-4F76-9F53-ADC9D477551D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:14:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <>
To: John Scudder <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-19, reverting to consensus text on opaque typed NLRI
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:14:57 -0000

Hi John and all,

Thanks for sorting that out. Draft submission is closed now, however I attached the to-be-20 version of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis for the record and will submit the draft when the tool opens again. 

I will also update the draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 as soon as possible (which may have some wrong references to rfc5575bis now). 

Btw, there is a WG LC open for draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 - a draft that is hanging around there for quite some time and has been recently been updated to nicely go along with rfc5575bis:

Cheers Christoph

> On 09.03.2020, at 21:30, John Scudder <> wrote:
> A while ago we had some debate on the list regarding opaque typed flowspec NLRI, which was introduced post-WGLC. It seems to me the consensus is that what we WGLC’d is what’s right and that we should essentially return to it. After a side conversation with the authors and AD, I agree. I’d like to ask the authors to make the necessary change (see the draft changes Christoph was so kind as to provide, below) and we’ll consider it closed.
> This doesn’t mean we should consider extensibility a dead letter, but that we should address it in Flowspec v2 (or whatever name we end up choosing for that work).

Christoph Loibl | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 |