Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
RFC 5575
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection
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
(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
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
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
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Recuse