Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts

Carriers have long, hot, theoretical debates for what to choose (SRv6 vs SR-MPLS). Sometimes with casualties.
Test of vendors (for performance) is needed only after the choice has been made.
Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Rossenhoevel
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:23 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; sbanks@encrypted.net; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?

Dear Eduard,

Thank you for your technical analysis, to which I agree - joining the documents is technically possible.

At incubation time, technology flavors such as SR-MPLS or SRv6 are often met with a religious approach. But, as the development shows meanwhile, these options are increasingly viewed as alternatives where network operators will choose the best fitting based on technical capabilities, economic benefits, and organizational preferences.  

With one single document, the community could refer to the one RFC for all benchmarking needs of segment routing-based networks, independent of the underlying transport technology.  I believe this could increase recognition and adoption of the technology.  (The target audience would likely not discover that two RFCs are more or less identical.  They would still be two different RFCs to network operators.)

>From my point of view, having two RFCs with almost all text identical (just one of the sections, and one of the authors would be different) would be startling in the IETF process. Their review, approval, and subsequent maintenance would be awkward because the two RFCs would need to be seen as twins; it would be inappropriate to update only one of them.  Keep in mind that the review effort for the WG would be higher as well, which might delay your work.

For me, the advantages of merging still clearly outweigh the disadvantages. 

Best regards, Carsten

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Vasilenko Eduard
Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 08:33
To: sbanks@encrypted.net; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?

Hi all,
The technology difference (that I have pointed out on the IETF 117) is possible to cover properly in the common document.
Would be a small inconvenience that not all tests would be needed for both (4 against 3 in every sub-section), and would be many places "if SRv6 then ... else ...".

The bigger problem is that SR-MPLS against SRv6 is a pretty religious decision.
People that choose one (for the deployment and test) would never need to test the other one.
Hence, they have 50% of the information in the draft that they need to scroll.
The audience for SRv6 and SR-MPLA is different. These are different Carriers.

Hence, it is better to keep documents separate.
But merge is possible.

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of sbanks@encrypted.net
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:51 PM
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?

Good afternoon BMWG,
	At IETF 117 in San Francisco, we had a discussion around whether or not to consolidate the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - they’re currently separate. We, as a group, took an action to continue that conversation on the list, prior to calling for the adoption of either 1 (consolidated) or both drafts. To that end, I’d like to ask BMWG for their opinions here. Gabor has already weighed in (thank you Gabor!). What say the rest of us?

Thank you,

Sarah
BMWG Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg