Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

From: Liyizhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:57:59 +0000

Hi,

I would like to agree with Greg's comment to encourage the inclusion of GENEVE as tunnel type in the document.

Donald's answers to the questions look fine to me.

Cheers,
Yizhou

From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

Greetings:

This begins a modified draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12.txt.

It is a modified WG LC because:
1) the WG still has to discussion where we make the cutoff for flow-specification v2,
2) there are no implementation for this WG LC

This WG LC should examine the following things:

1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
    the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of the draft)?

2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for standardization?

3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
 draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?

4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?

Cheerily, Sue