IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Tue, 10 March 2020 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80C33A0EA6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6dCDr8GFfks for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hated.at (mail.hated.at [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE1C3A0EB8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 80-110-113-91.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.113.91] helo=[192.168.66.207]) by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1jBayF-0002o2-Ec; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:14:42 +0100
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <5AAEF30F-BE63-423F-91AD-FD420C514D0E@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E75B48F6-9373-4F76-9F53-ADC9D477551D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:14:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <E10898AF-C1D6-49AA-88E4-2CB66EB7B3B4@juniper.net>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <E10898AF-C1D6-49AA-88E4-2CB66EB7B3B4@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/naZTfxTcdlBmDbya5e4nau1ZDF0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-19, reverting to consensus text on opaque typed NLRI
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=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:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SllhsoD1m1P982LS3var0bXe6sM/

Cheers Christoph


> On 09.03.2020, at 21:30, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> 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
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

v2.20.1 | Report a Bug | By Email