Re: [Int-dir] [BULK] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6

Christoph Loibl <> Wed, 04 November 2020 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8E73A0AC1; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:36 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 u5TIDaWwoXki; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:31 -0800 (PST)
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 70F883A12AE; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:18 -0800 (PST)
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=hge5G5zaeHydCB9MNUlpnrlJNVCPu/Ll9BRjaUurcKA=; b=AgA7KLtoucRJ1yPVTnsdvMN6gc 2oZLZrudyYfVBcDQOndDzR28wjasw8thtdUXFiUP8cLg0FLk7L8Nm4TAMmYvHlVDaFFVqhvvQa4my DNT/rwynD9a0A5WZz3yYjiJbOW+5N+Kv+hdZ/AvO5V8d0jAeGy5Yy7cVOSTAB0CYaKbrnwSQ7fXvF OeGoIO+GyCO5UxanTeU1uFifg84Q/IRzLWs7uHCNdez4D6gffl3kQ4P8+LfpyJ5PRDFoALUBab2rp DcEnfyY0aLfHXpFzeGsoTrl3ApXYvlNobqJJFHS3qoexuv6FdOsPs5ajy70YiWOaHGL1kOHO+T/9d l1nnE5uQ==;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1kaJqc-000EgI-Gu; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:33:16 +0100
From: Christoph Loibl <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_320F7652-BFA8-44F7-88FE-30AA5F60F338"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:33:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>,,
To: Donald Eastlake <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-Scanned-By: primary on (; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:33:14 +0100
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] [BULK] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 14:33:36 -0000

Hi Donald,

Thank you for your review and comments. See my comments inline. I also attached a updated document that contains changes resulting from your comments.

Since the draft submission is closed now I will ask Alvaro to publish the changed document today.

Cheers Christoph

> Section 4: Does the IETF allow direct references into github in the
> main body of a standards track RFC? Looks like all the comparison code
> is in the Appendix. Can the github reference at least be moved to the
> Appendix?
> Section 11.2: As far as I know, there are only normative and
> informational references, not "URIs" references.

This is exactly the same as in rfc5575bis which has been edited by rfc-editors, I think we can leave this for rfc-editors. I see they somehow removed this reference.

> ## Editorial
> Section 1, 1st sentence: "to be also capable of supporting" -> "to
> also support"

Edited as suggested.

> Section 1, 2nd sentence:
> This document analyzes the differences of IPv6 [RFC8200] flows
> description from those of traditional IPv4 packets and propose a
> subset of new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to
> enable Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
> [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] for IPv6.

> This document analyzes the differences between describing IPv6
> [RFC8200] flows and those of traditional IPv4 packets. It specifies
> new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to enable
> Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis]
> for IPv6.

Also edited as suggested.

> There are some other minor editorial things like plural/singular
> forms but I assume the RFC Editor will fix those.

Thanks for the comments.

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