Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 22) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2020-10-21 | |
| Requested | 2020-10-07 | |
| Authors | Christoph Loibl, Robert Raszuk, Susan Hares | |
| Draft last updated | 2020-10-25 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -17 by Jonathan Hardwick
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Dale Worley (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald Eastlake (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Dale Worley |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25 | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ppR1ajOhnhac9LAoA8CLmNztXQM | |
| Reviewed rev. | 17 (document currently at 22) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2020-10-25 |
Review
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17 Reviewer: Dale R. Worley Review Date: 2020-10-25 IETF LC End Date: 2020-10-21 IESG Telechat date: 2020-11-05 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC. Nits/editorial comments: 3.1. Type 1 - Destination IPv6 Prefix 3.2. Type 2 - Source IPv6 Prefix Unlike IPv4, it is plausible that a set of flows could be determined by two contiguous sections of an address, e.g., an initial prefix and a subset of bits within an embedded IPv4 address. By draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26 section 4.2, an IPv6 flow specification may not contain two Destination IPv6 Prefix or two Source IPv6 Prefix components, so this type of selection cannot be specified. 4. Ordering of Flow Specifications If the offsets are not equal, the lowest offset has precedence, as this flow matches the most significant bit. "as this flow" should be "as this flow specification" 5. Validation Procedure a) A destination prefix component with offset=0 is embedded in the Flow Specification I note that this requirement has no functional effect, as a destination prefix with length = 0 can always be added to a flow specification without effect. However, this observation also applies to IPv4 flow specifications, so I assume it has been given due consideration. [END]