Skip to main content

Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
RFC 5575

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(David Ward)
(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Recuse

(Ross Callon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-02-10)
Section 2., paragraph 2:
>    While forwarding information is, typically, dynamically signaled
>    across the network via routing protocols, there is no agreed upon
>    mechanism to dynamically signal flows across autonomous-systems.

  This is incorrect. RSVP has been used for this purpose for a long
  time. See RFC2210.


Section 4., paragraph 28:
>       Type 4 - Port
>          Encoding: <type (1 octet), [op, value]+>
>          Defines a list of {operation, value} pairs that matches source
>          OR destination TCP/UDP ports.  This list is encoded using the
>          numeric operand format defined above.  Values are encoded as 1
>          or 2 byte quantities.

  SCTP and DCCP also use port numbers. Suggest to add them to the list
  above. (Same for source and destination ports below.)

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-02-12)
Health warnings and ACL configuration by management interfaces are not defined. This may be within the scope of future work in the OPS area - formalized by some form of SMI.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-04-27)
1) I have let go off my IPv6 discuss, on the basis that Danny McPherson
has promised to write a document on this, and the RTG ADs agree that the
work belongs in the charter and should be done.

2) I would suggest that the document needs to talk more about in which
situations the use of flowspec is appropriate, e.g., dos prevention,
disabling specific attacks, etc. vs. any routing of flows in the core
of the internet. The additions to the text clear my discuss, explaining
the proper usage would do far more to convince the reader that this does
not cause a scalability problem than saying "its not been a problem and
we can build bigger routers", which the current text basically states.
(FWIW I believe that is a true statement, but nevertheless.)

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-04-01)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()