Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Susan Hares <> Fri, 24 April 2020 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61823A041D; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wbymxJgwkLER; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7BAD3A0C0F; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?'=C3=89ric_Vyncke'?= <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:58:15 -0400
Message-ID: <012201d61a40$66f798e0$34e6caa0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQDH3wr1V03HAdKDI16OurUS47Z8OqqkwR/w
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200423-2, 04/23/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-idr-r?= =?utf-8?q?fc5575bis-23=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:58:25 -0000


We have a rule in IDR to not submit this for publication until we have 2 implementations.   
We do not have 2 vendors who will indicate the v6 support is deployed.  

The original document (RFC5575) did not have v6, and the IESG asked the IDR group to work on the v6 draft. 
The same authors have a v6 version of text in WG LC.   We've call for implementation reports and receive none on the v6. 

If you would like to help us find v6 with Flow-specification deployments, we would be happy to forward the v6 version to the IESG. 
Our long term game-plan was one document with v4 and v6 support. 

Sue Hares 
(author and IDR co-chair)

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:50 AM
To: The IESG
Subject: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: 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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is clear, easy to read (I appreciated the given examples).

Alas, due to overload of work, I had only a quick browse through the document with specific focus points and found nothing EXCEPT why having two different documents ? One for IPv4 (with the core elements of the protocol) and one for
IPv6 (with only the IPv6 specifics)... I am more than surprized to say the least... hence my DISCUSS...

This blocking DISCUSS can easily be fixed: e.g., with a RFC Editor note to make a cluster of this document and draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 so that they are published together with adjacent RFC numbers. Merging the two documents would be preferred but I understand that this is more work (albeit a missed opportunity).

Please find below a couple on non-blocking COMMENTs.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,




I also second Erik K.'s comment on non-TCP/UDP ports.

Idr mailing list