Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74093A0D69; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEk9Ocs4GNwD; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x234.google.com (mail-oi1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0183A0D5A; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x234.google.com with SMTP id m67so12914869oif.4; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gnFhMqULv+72mCvq/tJM/SiNoXlOXUBnBX2FhF5hyOo=; b=oQzG/5SyoecfNfggkJJS7fvmx7U5g0pSwnVXPT1IfCBKP8QRF9lUuoH6iPJXmxm8nP DPc4mokU2dbM8FC92CCTAzAmrgvmjLCeKWil5QeyMNMZAtY/xgaxgakO+LsTbwzLUarb pFqUJmQ2gVmnaI8NJTS1+bQOF+W4XPfzl2jZWKIaSbrQs5mAJ+jqrMQcL4UmBUSUXaZn 7niWJ8MDlcOZTORKWyyVrMj19rJwR7KxV8BBRaO9wUUHePB3MLR7jxYIwKHlWd12mKE8 lQfdFhzPipRpPpAOMD7q5D9bnt6Zr6qcuUmFv2CoBoq8IIEK0SYo2+CSCJH8IDRXAXC5 xb4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gnFhMqULv+72mCvq/tJM/SiNoXlOXUBnBX2FhF5hyOo=; b=J+7ZHTqSA1UMA4p97vghjEi1gb6WSSrTiOKXV3L/moqwIo35EKmb8C1yo4bTDwMiHm JPlpvUcVscV/zkPUC/qjHj5RZYdLzhGEvyfJc0Sbd5GPe8DH0IAWKiB6spHObSY8kzcA /U0xH/YgYANjMfd1fE1dDJ4uJ5ZCFdL8oar4dWP0EWIaPAa2ub2ODGuMFw/iEyWYqHDS qQhr2ZValc3Lmjm5fIDqsxG4a6Ba+vfB4BslKwLnIYhbw3ropDUGxTVuS6V5z9dOkcYQ gVgC98pzn2x5yeUYGPUDgUp9k7uJC5b1IpjQI3cZFKQPzaT3UuFiDFyRwRyv0GZWzSfW kl8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VKCgFd69/IKBfy/SODKuHM3LIzG80z0PFOGNDUlvkdj2mlIXw zNlaJzOl9OoNMJgxjXTQxPrIaVF10d+YRNFhGLs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5yNdoQV44g7cwKgxtZsbwb3lcqAPCiJfCsPyhrutoC9ZflZN1NkMJCXV+Besgq+G+RHHX1u9NueqgOy9nyuU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:7284:: with SMTP id p126mr382017oic.54.1590620617270; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com> <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com> <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com> <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:03:25 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2x_3brYVtx+FpuE7qE6ezXjiqxCDciRfKX_YpVhATKTYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd69bd05a6a938d4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-TCvEPKDnx1JaifC4MPM3uGPn-o>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 23:03:41 -0000

Are you a member of the IESG?

On Thu, 28 May 2020, 08:33 Zafar Ali (zali), <zali=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP
> changes will be required. E.g., it will require
>
>    - ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions)
>    - To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt)
>    - For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt)
>    - BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling,
>    draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus)
>    - PCEP extension (TBA)
>    - OAM for debugging the mapping table
>    - Yang interface
>    - More to come
>
>
>
> The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.
>
>
>
> Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called “building
> blocks” fits together?
>
>
>
> If author’s claim is that the home for the architecture work is not
> Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first
> defined architecture, use-case and requirements.
>
> This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors.
>
> Why they are looking for a short cut?
>
>
>
> CRH is a “major” change and outside the scope of 6man charter.
>
> It should follow the proper IETF review process.
>
>
>
> Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing
> area”?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:09 PM
> *To: *Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>, Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc: *Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>, "spring@ietf.org"
> <spring@ietf.org>rg>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re:
> [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint
> option?
>
>
>
> On 28-May-20 09:50, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> I don't think this is about killing innovation. After all no one is saying
> you can not use it in your network.
>
>
>
> WG acceptance calls
>
>
>
> Adoption is not acceptance. At least half the messages on this topic are
> written as if we were in the middle of a WG Last Call.
>
>
>
> are evaluated in terms of WG rough consensu if significant number of
> members of WG find a proposal useful and if they are willing to work on it.
>
>
>
> Indeed. Exactly. Not in the least about consensus that the proposal is
> ready for approval. Just that it is ready for discussion and, as you say,
> that there are people willing to work on it.
>
>
>
> It seems clear that other then one vendor and very few individuals
> majority of the WG members do not support the adoption.
>
>
>
> That's for the WG Chairs to evaluate, and I expect them to evaluate
> singing in chorus appropriately. Also, and this is not a grammatical
> quibble, we don't have "members". We have participants, and we don't count
> votes.
>
>
>
> I am not against CRH. But what I am against is that CRH/SRm6 authors
> already bounced back via SPRING doors so they have chosen to try to enter
> via 6man window. That is not proper style for any proposal.
>
>
>
> I agree that CRH is not in scope of the SPRING charter as it stands today
> ("the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6)").
> But let me say again that we should hear the opinion of the routing ADs.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>     Brian
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
> ipv6@ietf.org
>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>