Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
RFC 5575

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

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(David Ward) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-27)
No email
send info
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) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-02-10)
No email
send info
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.)

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2009-02-12 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Ross Callon) Recuse