Protocol Action: 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 06 February 2025 20:59 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <173887554852.294.3549744009928857599@dt-datatracker-75c44cbbdf-pxnd6>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 12:59:08 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: HITNFLZLNRG7HOZPGB5TWCHFBXYU2XQN
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pcamaril@cisco.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/bd1WAfFyNqjJazE0LSBCt4RqD8Y>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)'
(draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Technical Summary

Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is the instantiation of Segment
Routing (SR) on the IPv6 dataplane. This document specifies new
flavors for the SRv6 endpoint behaviors defined in RFC 8986, which
enable the compression of an SRv6 SID list. Such compression
significantly reduces the size of the SRv6 encapsulation needed to
steer packets over long segment lists.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

The technology described in this document has already seen broad deployment in production networks by multiple early adopters. There have, however, been rough discussions centered on how the SRv6 endpoint behaviors specified herein relate to certain requirements described in RFC 8200.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?

Multiple existing and deployed implementations exist, spanning routing vendors, merchant silicon vendors, and open-source projects. Various industry interoperability events have taken place over the years with multiple vendors and implementations.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Pablo Camarillo. The
Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

Protocol Action: 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List En… The IESG