[Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 April 2020 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7453A0CA6; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jie.dong@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.127.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <158756317450.27447.7394258570701485593@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:46:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wGDrB6tT6m7OsDGRzvKRvxQ-0X4>
Subject: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 Apr 2020 13:46:15 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies as this may be a really silly question, but isn't it possible for
traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets to interfere with each other? That
is, if by mistake a flow specification shows up containing both actions and
they contradict each other (e.g., 0 bytes but 1M packets), how is that
situation supposed to be handled?