IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Mon, 06 February 2017 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 1B734129CB1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:52:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 PEs2DdgHELdq for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B481F12945C for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-MAILFROM: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <idr@ietf.org>
X-FROMIP: 192.168.168.120
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,192.168.168.120,20170206164332
Received: from unknown (HELO out1.zte.com.cn) (192.168.168.120) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2017 08:43:32 -0000
X-MAILFROM: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <idr@ietf.org>
X-FROMIP: 10.30.3.20
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,10.30.3.20,20170206164010
Received: from unknown (HELO mse01.zte.com.cn) (10.30.3.20) by localhost with (AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 6 Feb 2017 08:40:10 -0000
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id v168pcZ4058564; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:51:38 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by notes_svr37.zte.com.cn (IBM Domino Release 9.0.1FP6) with SMTP id 2017020616513629-868549 ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:51:36 +0800
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:51:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:51:39 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5898391b600-be146
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201702061651394752150@zte.com.cn>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: 36E285C0-C716-437A-806D-A453273146DD@juniper.net, 1D651738-BCED-4F25-88B5-5257871697DA@juniper.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: jgs@juniper.net
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes_svr37/zte_ltd(Release 9.0.1FP6|April 20, 2016) at 2017/02/06 16:51:36, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2017-02-06 16:51:26, Serialize complete at 2017-02-06 16:51:26
X-TNEFEvaluated: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn v168pcZ4058564
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/puxwnBValoGZql97pqogJpee_Bg>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:52:05 -0000

Support.




Thanks,

Sandy










原始邮件



发件人： ＜jgs@juniper.net＞
收件人： ＜idr@ietf.org＞
日 期 ：2017年02月02日 00:41
主 题 ：Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"





Hi All,

Reminder, this call for adoption is going on and will end in five days. So far, the only reply has been from Christoph (thanks!) with a pointer to his paper "BGP Flow Specification Multi Vendor and Inter AS Interoperability". The paper is long, but I encourage you to look at it. To encourage you, here are a few excerpts from the conclusion:

"we think that what we listed as bugs sometimes is a result of unclear sections and definitions in RFC 5575"

"With this update we think that a proper interoperable implementation should be possible and unambiguous sections have been improved"

and perhaps most motivational to the WG:

"Given the current bugs, interoperability issues and missing features we do not recommend flow specification BGP sessions between different carriers […] Invalid flow specification NLRIs or action filters have the potential to remotely trigger a complete network failure."

If you do NOT support adopting this work, it would be interesting to hear why. For example, do you think RFC 5575 is fine as it is, and if so, why (considering the issues raised in the paper and on the list). Of course, it is not IDR's job to document and fix implementation bugs. But it is *exactly* our job to fix the spec if it's ambiguous and that ambiguity leads to interoperability issues.

If you do support adopting the work, please remember to say so on the list — we can't declare consensus based on silence.

Thanks,

—John

＞ On Jan 21, 2017, at 10:03 AM, John G. Scudder ＜jgs@juniper.net＞ wrote:
＞ 
＞ Hi All,
＞ 
＞ The authors have requested IDR working group adoption of draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules". Please send your comments to the list.
＞ 
＞ This adoption call will conclude on Monday, February 6.
＞ 
＞ Thanks,
＞ 
＞ —John
＞ _______________________________________________
＞ Idr mailing list
＞ Idr@ietf.org
＞ https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email