IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] 答复: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-15.txt (6/24 - 7/8)

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Wed, 01 July 2020 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 A85D73A07D0; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 EtyhPbGU-CGi; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
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 101973A07C0; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id F3469FB21D672853A915; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:04:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) by lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:04:41 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:04:41 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.204]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:04:37 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-15.txt (6/24 - 7/8)
Thread-Index: AQHWT2RHZYirUyaRnUuAbhK7JJ6zL6jyO+/3
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 06:04:36 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937A73E3@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <005501d64a8a$e3e7a640$abb6f2c0$@ndzh.com>, <a8fe104faea7403ca40bbbc8e9a50553@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <a8fe104faea7403ca40bbbc8e9a50553@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.153.180.83]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937A73E3dggemm512mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u6siGK9lN3XA0oVcF0MXfbFK-a8>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-15.txt (6/24 - 7/8)
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: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 06:04:46 -0000

Hi,



I support the WG LC for this draft.



Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)



From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 8:52 AM
To: 'idr@ietf. org' <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-15.txt (6/24 - 7/8)

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-15.txt

You can obtain the draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn/

There is IPR filing on this draft which can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4142/

This draft does not have 2 implementation so it will be held for 2 implementations.

In reviewing the draft please consider:

1) Should this functionality be included in RFC5575bis,
or should it wait for Flow Specification v2?

2) Do you think this technology is need by BGP deployments?

3) Do you think this draft technology is ready for implementation?

4) Do you think the draft is clear and ready for publication?

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email