Re: [Idr] [BULK] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Thu, 22 October 2020 08:54 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 6E0413A120E; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 3AxK-YDacevL; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:10 -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 050353A11AF; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 01:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; 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 80-110-113-91.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.113.91] helo=[192.168.66.207]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1kVWM7-000BEk-O6; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:56 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <278EDB7B-C264-4619-BE6E-799CB2CF7D00@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8E17C22-631C-439B-BB3B-C7B01DD30882"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <160320291135.11937.7363678904982610426@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <160320291135.11937.7363678904982610426@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:53:55 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tiBGJyYp_jOb1OklprJrxcTPsr4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [BULK] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
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: 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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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. Thanks Cheers Christoph -- Christoph Loibl c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at
- [Idr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-f… Qin Wu via Datatracker
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Opsdir last call review of draft… Christoph Loibl