IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 12 April 2021 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 1F1B63A08B0; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 p6qONodRGuxN; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CE3A3A08AA; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: 6man@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 13CGcpix012449 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:38:52 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org, draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org
References: <161591339002.5771.1047511172491571607@ietfa.amsl.com> <b9ac5db9-58ab-5e23-d00e-886e9e72595e@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <599918f1-b690-7f8e-a950-b4fcb4f05282@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:38:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b9ac5db9-58ab-5e23-d00e-886e9e72595e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bWJrsF2si1ldkOX21CtqrpQLqnc>
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: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:38:58 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 08/04/2021 03:18:
> My first comment on the present draft is that it doesn't state its
> target scenario (which might be LAG, because LAG is mentioned a few
> times).
I was wondering the same myself.  It's difficult to assess the need for 
a non-backwards-compatible protocol change without a clear understanding 
of the end goal.

Maybe the authors would be able to clear things up on this front?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email