Re: [Idr] [BULK] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17

Christoph Loibl <> Thu, 22 October 2020 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0413A120E; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AxK-YDacevL; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 050353A11AF; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To: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=cpKY1//9d8ipxQJxSM8BTN9SbefxTEq5K8b+aOJjr9o=; b=AVgntgXoSYmQH1ksbdYhC5EEtd PG64A7gNlW4B+jRwVOteGO9l8ooIMeVwQvIFNZmcce52TUuyYD4KKHuIlj8fxanybnMS4iCroJyRq GevORibT0w4dcg3SUhgNp1NvE0oJkFp7CdrnTD05odJiQh05N2JIPgbVgCi3z6DVF52dpJHq4yx+z WEn64YDOOETZZoPCIhAaFoX0+aKV70RhgqeuuEB+P8VxjZCV68PC/skhtFtE/XnK6AZ7FqrIVjy8o 6HF1GAXc4+4ffiFFudzF5wBdSF0nbH32BHS4KN5kTrZV+SDjBL2yJ/KcHbOmArl9JDMMwaLOAPbAZ 4ZSwRKow==;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1kVWM7-000BEk-O6; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:56 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8E17C22-631C-439B-BB3B-C7B01DD30882"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Qin Wu <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-Scanned-By: primary on (; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:55 +0200
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [BULK] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
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: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:54:20 -0000

Hi Qin,

Thank you for the feedback on the draft. See my answers to your questions inline below.

> On 20.10.2020, at 16:08, Qin Wu via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Qin Wu
> Review result: Ready
> I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Operations and Management
> Directorate. I believe this document is well written. One clarification
> question I want to ask here is why not consolidate this document into
> I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis since rc5575bis has just begun.

This has been a longer discussion in the IDR working group and it has been decided that IPv6 FS should remain a separate document. Since this rfc5575-bis is not targeted to introduce new functionality and implementations of RFC5575 can easily adopt rfc5575-bis. At the same time we also agreed that we want to finalise FS IPv6 shortly after the -bis.

> Regarding Type 13 -
> Flow Label , I am wondering why Type 13 component values can not be be encoded
> as 8-byte quantities? why len=11 is not supported for IPv6 case?

The 20-bit numeric value fits into a 4-byte value. (8-byte len=11 is fine (the draft has a SHOULD there) but inefficient and not recommended).

> Regarding "the
> Sub-Type always TBD" in section 6.1, I want to suggest to add reference to IANA
> section, i.e., section 8.2.

I will put that on the list for potential changes.


Cheers Christoph 

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