Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Mon, 02 December 2019 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@huawei.com>
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 89D8F120123 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 19:14:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Pju20NWdCr_t for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 19:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F8991200C1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 19:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A9BA9193CA61DBAC86D7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:14:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:14:24 +0000
Received: from DGGEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.200]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:14:16 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]
Thread-Index: AdWd0gRnmm6Aw4Y9ShOHyzWN65U36QH4juaQAAZtuKAAmJyFgAAijFxg
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:14:15 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB027F978A@dggeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <016501d59dd2$e5458850$afd098f0$@ndzh.com> <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C9F8255@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <AM6PR07MB4823A7DFBF381C71B7FF5E93E0470@AM6PR07MB4823.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <32C23C82-3512-4A53-9D89-09F374EB5359@arrcus.com>
In-Reply-To: <32C23C82-3512-4A53-9D89-09F374EB5359@arrcus.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB027F978Adggeml509mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/sP6Xy_Ix7Z2kR3tnFnXElXksz6g>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 03:14:32 -0000

Yes, support because this document is really useful for steering packets into a specific path, such as steering packets into SFC.

1)      Is compatible with draft-ietf-rfc5575bis-17.txt?
Yes
2)      Whether the draft is useful for deployments of flow specification
Yes, useful for steering traffic into paths.

3)      Is this technology ready for deployment?
Yes.

4)      Is the write-up of this technology in draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect clearly written and ready for publication?
Yes. Well, I think some editorial modifications should be made for titles and sub-titles about the upper cases issues.

Also, do we need to provide more text for security consideration?

1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-1>;.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-2>
   2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-2>;.  indirection-id and indirection-id table . . . . . . . . . . .   3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-3>
   3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-3>;.  Use Case Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-3>
     3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-3.1>;.  Redirection shortest Path tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-3>
     3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-3.2>;.  Redirection to path-engineered tunnels  . . . . . . . . .   4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-4>
     3.3.  Redirection to complex dynamically constructed tunnels  .   5
   4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-4>;.  Redirect to indirection-id Community  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-6>
   5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#section-5>;.  Redirect using localised indirection-id mapping table . . . .   8<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10#page-8>


Thanks for authors’ excellent contributions!
Cheng


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keyur Patel
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 2:17 AM
To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>;; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]

As a co-author, I support the publication.  Yes on all 4 questions. 😊

Regards,
Keyur

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com<mailto:gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:38 AM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, "idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>" <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]


We have implemented this draft in commercial code. See tracking wiki:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect%20implementations

Not sure if required from WG operational perspective: As co-author I support publication.

G/

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 13:24
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]

Hi Sue & WG,

I support the publication of this document.

1) Yes
2) Yes, it’s useful for adjust traffic
3) Yes.
4) Yes

Thanks,
Shunwan


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 1:42 PM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019]

This begins a 2 week WG Last call on draft-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt from [11/17/2019 to 12/2/2019].

You can obtain the draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/

Consider in your review whether this draft:

1)      Is compatible with draft-ietf-rfc5575bis-17.txt?
2)      Whether the draft is useful for deployments of flow specification
3)      Is this technology ready for deployment?
4)      Is the write-up of this technology in draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect clearly written and ready for publication?

Thank you for considering this draft.

Cheerily, Susan Hares