Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22.txt

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Fri, 17 April 2020 07:24 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 C99D93A0F88 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tix.at
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 53X9vrBBYQrP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (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 929E93A0F84 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; s=rev1; h=Message-Id:In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=embqzWG48wzh/HxIVI0s8bDZGm1ArTBH+K3IZKFP6Hg=; b=EEmB0QMmUi2h/sxchb97XzOZ/B 4nMj73JkdPTDYdfcklCdERm3rjnbctf6g+D0niScliG/BULsk6Ddr/Foojalsz0/JhRM9C0PR1vZQ 2FrLMHtXo17W4cVXZK/2syaeM6Baho/ZQYHAUoMtidtG3jaseVIj1jPYh9CofHZV2k5YN95Qq+djN AHLVUem5SHs+bx/k2tShl57UehfuKnhKIjhzWo5RAPtB8sYs1SwXpbbzxzfAO2UNXRNgz0ieVlGqo MHKH5nV9zWp9uode2Rq9Ow1Ig6paGfDAl1giy9l1Py+23MZ9BeZpO5naZvmAPzfwavPfsfdihrhXz Xp2TkKuQ==;
Received: from 213-225-13-127.nat.highway.a1.net ([213.225.13.127] helo=[192.168.88.217]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1jPLLM-000Ph8-VJ for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:23:21 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4534E4E-B52B-4E1A-A0DB-D514E2DDBB3A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:23:15 +0200
References: <158710781510.26505.10504635703920675387@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <158710781510.26505.10504635703920675387@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <6A6DFA52-A782-4D53-8AC3-E3376FBE1745@tix.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:23:21 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t5qTxRBdh6T8HfQlf2hVDXsvCpA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22.txt
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: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:24:07 -0000

Hi,

I uploaded the -22 solving the nit from Alvaro:

> On 17.04.2020, at 00:18, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yeah…that’s why I suggested this change: s/standardizes as BGP extended community values [RFC7153]/standardizes as BGP extended communities [RFC4360]
> 

The changes are tracked on Github:

https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis <https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis>


I also moved the python source of flowspec-cmp to the same repo so that the work on the draft and the source of flowspec-cmp are in a single repo, which seems more natural.

Cheers 
Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 17.04.2020, at 09:16, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
>        Authors         : Christoph Loibl
>                          Susan Hares
>                          Robert Raszuk
>                          Danny McPherson
>                          Martin Bacher
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22.txt
> 	Pages           : 37
> 	Date            : 2020-04-17
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer
>   Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used
>   to distribute traffic Flow Specifications.  This allows the routing
>   system to propagate information regarding more specific components of
>   the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix.
> 
>   It also specifies BGP Extended Community encoding formats, that can
>   be used to propagate Traffic Filtering Actions along with the Flow
>   Specification NLRI.  Those Traffic Filtering Actions encode actions a
>   routing system can take if the packet matches the Flow Specification.
> 
>   Additionally, it defines two applications of that encoding format:
>   one that can be used to automate inter-domain coordination of traffic
>   filtering, such as what is required in order to mitigate
>   (distributed) denial-of-service attacks, and a second application to
>   provide traffic filtering in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN service.
>   Other applications (ie. centralized control of traffic in a SDN or
>   NFV context) are also possible.  Other documents may specify Flow
>   Specification extensions.
> 
>   The information is carried via BGP, thereby reusing protocol
>   algorithms, operational experience, and administrative processes such
>   as inter-provider peering agreements.
> 
>   This document obsoletes both RFC5575 and RFC7674.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr