Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2020-11-03
Requested 2020-10-26
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Christoph Loibl , Robert Raszuk , Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2020-11-05
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 R. 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 E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-intdir-telechat-eastlake-2020-11-05
Posted at
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2020-11-01
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6. These comments were written primarily for
the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with
any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details
on the INT Directorate, see

Reviewer: Donald Eastlake, III
Review Result: Ready with non-technical issues

The draft looks good technically, but:


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

Section 11.2: As far as I know, there are only normative and
informational references, not "URIs" references.


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

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.

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

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA