RE: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 08:17 UTC
Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8623A1DAB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=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 ELQ_DitDMrxS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:17:01 -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 9BEF23A1DB2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5CEF9814288AD8CCA93F; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:17:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) by lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:17:00 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:16:59 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:16:59 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Thread-Topic: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Thread-Index: AdYGrhlvIzaSW1JiRqm4O/hG/yhBOwAgn2uA
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:16:59 +0000
Message-ID: <0b70f41401e44279878ad3a768991509@huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348DB9203603987E7BD80F7AECB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348DB9203603987E7BD80F7AECB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.3.56]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0b70f41401e44279878ad3a768991509huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7vIRa8UPNQAQ_URK5zMG4Zl9aaI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:17:09 -0000
Hi Ron, Thanks for raising this point! RFC 8321 and related draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark are Experimental because they describe the methodology in general as protocol agnostic technique. Actually, both RFC 8321 and draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark are considered borderline between Informational and Experimental, indeed we had some discussion on that during the AD review. Anyway, to make the methodology applicable and standard for a specific protocol, we need the marking field in the header and this is what we aim to do with IPv6. Note that we are following the same approach of draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam that was also submitted as Standards Track. Our idea is to go beyond the general scope of RFC8321 and implement this OAM method in IPv6, so this is why the proposed status is Standards Track. Regards, Giuseppe From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 6:20 PM To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org> Subject: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark Authors, Draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark is based upon draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark, which is intended for publication as EXPERIMENTAL. Does it make sense to progress draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark as EXPERIMENTAL, too? Does it make sense to use an RFC3692-style code point for the option type? Ron Juniper Business Use Only
- draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark Ron Bonica
- RE: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark Giuseppe Fioccola