Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:13:14 +1200

I believe this version resolves Jari's comments and the
subsequent discussion.

    Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:11:29 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6
Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
	Author(s)       : Shane Amante
                          Brian Carpenter
                          Sheng Jiang
                          Jarno Rajahalme
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2011-06-29

   This document specifies the IPv6 Flow Label field and the minimum
   requirements for IPv6 nodes labeling flows, IPv6 nodes forwarding
   labeled packets, and flow state establishment methods.  Even when
   mentioned as examples of possible uses of the flow labeling, more
   detailed requirements for specific use cases are out of scope for
   this document.

   The usage of the Flow Label field enables efficient IPv6 flow
   classification based only on IPv6 main header fields in fixed
   positions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:02:21 +0200

Good. Are we ready to send this to Last Call, or do we want to wait for 
possible other comments from the working group?

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:35:27 +0200

I looked at Last Call time period and IESG telechat schedule and saw 
that if we want this approved before the IETF, it needs to go to IETF 
Last Call today. So I sent it in. If there are substantive comments from 
the working group we can pull the document back for further 
consideration in the working group.

Jari

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:39:00 -0700

On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> I looked at Last Call time period and IESG telechat schedule and saw that if we want this approved before the IETF, it needs to go to IETF Last Call today. So I sent it in. If there are substantive comments from the working group we can pull the document back for further consideration in the working group.
> 

Works for me.  It's good to see it taking the next step forward.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:32:47 +1200

Thanks Jari. Of course, we can always factor in later WG comments if necessary.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:03:32 +0200

Is there a document shepherd write up for this document?

Is there a document shepherd:-)

Tom Petch

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:23:23 -0700

Tom,

Brian Haberman is the document shepherd.  The questionnaire was sent to the ADs and should be in the tracker.

Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:06:46 +1200

With respect to one comment in the writeup:

 "At this point, the example algorithm provided in Appendix A does not
  generate sufficiently distributed flow label values.  Prior to RFC
  publication or IETF Last Call, this algorithm will need to be replaced
  by the authors."

The latest draft does contain an updated algorithm, and the wording has
been changed to make it very clear that it's only a simple example.

Regards
   Brian