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

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>, Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc: *Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org"
> <spring@ietf.org>, 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
>