Return-Path: X-Original-To: bof-srv6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bof-srv6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CF4C14F61E for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 11:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f_ThO3mG0aKy for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 11:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0497C14F617 for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 11:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a59a9d66a51so268767566b.2 for ; Thu, 09 May 2024 11:00:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari.net; s=google; t=1715277614; x=1715882414; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tWIfwvh2Y+x8gzk/Wh2gYGCLUa9V3jrkc2EMXQ8Yn+E=; b=esht+H2FWXeR2UBorvKPXExBzNK9YWnHm/C37g1N9HOErnPLZru/vOITCg8Ndeqpa9 CUIDsWYTY67ROI83Q74LhHn2EQ8FWIw1rsLZvvmzcDZ/Vi5BhwlOM6i3ouuesIPvqjc8 jRy2sjy42DtQdYUu+/za4scDdxertbTUmk1cluyF1mwe70W+dkJmvSPXhthqQhOldban o2Ee4i+b7IZj9wwnT05XREzRbVdNziiMyunYT5Ux9s2WJ2y2XNrebAZxOe9QBOxPShZC IPSBSMS+XHsoC0DQzSV95B30uMzNfWEFJiQqHp+/TWcq18z6a9cpwDz6I5HpROmYwbsa kxkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715277614; x=1715882414; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tWIfwvh2Y+x8gzk/Wh2gYGCLUa9V3jrkc2EMXQ8Yn+E=; b=qEZMjRsVTlhCLlT9Eo44n2hyWb2+tUDdsYAOHsgl3UdyuGqeMDH/5HWwEOGmM+VqWF 69LT6B2A8tf210vqzXN2j15M89ncx+eeHXMY3EgHWUUZ6eb4Xt9GmkhyhWjVCMjDLMwF 0xsfG9DOHMjyNyILxhl4eda1BOFgcwFHFsXWAeqQHWYNX/YlYrvxjIoUahro2mzAbFQN ksstIovuvkWfp2DXR1BPG8NvPrdzJiBSuiw+NhKpSXkeVmx1lHpYuI1a3XDedu8JEhqf 6PTEoHSWgEjsISk4QHC9OEI3B5mkYJKWeXq1PAWdkeUxGHva+TwUbfQ5XmEEr5hipvYV C7nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw0hZnC8IovauDzGjif4QT64kggj6uEcMUL+aYfpH7tdIP6JUpS +7ZVmPxsNoW+QzCIgbG1rgTrIu7PXuB01+TOQ4EgUJ8qSBxxITz8JaI+WBqhwbPdPtrHBd5XEC+ TrTIwitWcyQWuJxXw3d/FqSyg/3BY8B6RVtegKX55GdUWdpAW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7DxDNrRU3o4h9WmG2kk1VRdBRNeeaHLa7ZpwFDTAt1zq8NcjNKjt5Gr6rIwJSCksRuj2rYHvMWWOrcAvNuiQ= X-Received: by 2002:a50:a40c:0:b0:56d:c928:ad76 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5734d67e8d0mr277259a12.26.1715277613507; Thu, 09 May 2024 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:00:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2024-05-08T19:06:11Z) X-Superhuman-ID: lvzjzoi6.854cead4-9166-45a8-8597-0401de6d3075 X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft002a9c41a653d299 X-Superhuman-Thread-ID: draft00fda78d3b2099dd From: Warren Kumari Message-ID: To: bof-srv6ops Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d84b0806180930c5" Message-ID-Hash: QWCDIBMLUC45GOS6JPFOYFK6GA3FRAVZ X-Message-ID-Hash: QWCDIBMLUC45GOS6JPFOYFK6GA3FRAVZ X-MailFrom: warren@kumari.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BBof-srv6ops=5D_Proposed_path_forward=E2=80=A6?= List-Id: BoF-SRv6-Operations Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 17:27:48 X-Original-Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 13:00:13 -0500 --000000000000d84b0806180930c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Firstly, thank you all again for making the BoF successful, and apologies for how long it has taken for this update. Jim Guichard, Dhruv and I have had a number of discussions about the best way forward; there was clearly a significant amount of operational topics raised during the BoF, and so clearly there is interest=E2=80=A6 but there = are also clearly landmines which people pointed out, and which we need to avoid. These include: 1: Concerns around clarity about where specific work would be performed =E2= =80=94 we have many existing working groups (including SPRING and V6OPS) which relate to SRv6, and we don=E2=80=99t want conflicts. 2: Minimizing the potential for conflict between the (proposed) SRv6OPS WG and SPRING. A conflict within a WG is bad, but it becomes worse if it turns into a cross-WG fight. 3: Having SRv6OPS impose (non-operational) requirements on SPRING, or artificially constrain what SPRING (or 6MAN or V6OPS, or=E2=80=A6) is devel= oping. Many of these concerns can be mitigated by better coordination and collaboration, and so what I am proposing is chartering an SRv6OPS Working Group in the Ops Area, but with Jim (who is the AD for SPRING as the responsible AD). We also added =E2=80=9CThe Segment Routing (SR) instantiat= ion on the IPv6 data plane is referred to as SRv6=E2=80=9D to help clarify the relationship between SRv6 and IPv6. We also tweaked the charter to hopefully foster collaboration and coordination - this includes things like clarifying the scope, and the relationship between SRv6OPS and other working groups, specifying that the chairs will discuss document adoption with the AD, etc. I=E2=80=99d like to start the chartering process soon, but Jim, Dhruv and I= also wanted to share the plan and the tweaked charter so y=E2=80=99all are aware= . The charter: https://github.com/SRv6-Operations/IETF119-SRv6-Operations-Bof/blob/main/SR= v6OPS-Charter.md The updates: https://github.com/SRv6-Operations/IETF119-SRv6-Operations-Bof/compare/aa36= 362~5...aa36362 Thank you all, Warren, Jim and Dhruv. --000000000000d84b0806180930c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,


F= irstly, thank you all again for making the BoF successful, and apologies fo= r how long it has taken for this update.


Jim Guichard, Dhruv and I have = had a number of discussions about the best way forward; there was clearly a= significant amount of operational topics raised during the BoF, and so cle= arly there is interest=E2=80=A6 but there are also clearly landmines which = people pointed out, and which we need to avoid.


These include:

1: Concerns around clarity about where spec= ific work would be performed =E2=80=94 we have many existing working groups= (including SPRING and V6OPS) which relate to SRv6, and we don=E2=80=99t wa= nt conflicts.

2: Minimizing the po= tential for conflict between the (proposed) SRv6OPS WG and SPRING. A confli= ct within a WG is bad, but it becomes worse if it turns into a cross-WG fig= ht.


3: Having SRv6OPS impose (non-operational) requirements on SPRING, o= r artificially constrain what SPRING (or 6MAN or V6OPS, or=E2=80=A6) is dev= eloping.=C2=A0


Many of these concerns can be mitigated by better coordi= nation and collaboration, and so what I am proposing is chartering an SRv6O= PS Working Group in the Ops Area, but with Jim (who is the AD for SPRING as= the responsible AD). We also added =E2=80=9CThe Segment Routing (SR) insta= ntiation on the IPv6 data plane is referred to as SRv6=E2=80=9D to help cla= rify the relationship between SRv6 and IPv6.


We also tweaked the charter= to hopefully foster collaboration and coordination - this includes things = like clarifying the scope, and the relationship between SRv6OPS and other w= orking groups, specifying that the chairs will discuss document adoption wi= th the AD, etc.=C2=A0



I=E2=80=99d = like to start the chartering process soon, but Jim, Dhruv and I also wanted= to share the plan and the tweaked charter so y=E2=80=99all are aware.


<= br>

The charter:=C2=A0https://github.com= /SRv6-Operations/IETF119-SRv6-Operations-Bof/blob/main/SRv6OPS-Charter.md


The updates:=C2=A0

https://github.com/SRv6-Operat= ions/IETF119-SRv6-Operations-Bof/compare/aa36362~5...aa36362
=



Thank you all,=C2=A0
Warren, Jim and Dhruv.

--000000000000d84b0806180930c5--