Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Ron, I missed answering your question on semantics and SIDs.  The answer is in RFC8754 and RFC8402 and their discussion of SID semantics:
- RFC8402 tells us an SRv6 SID is an IPv6 address.
- RFC8754 section 1 defines SRv6 and its instantiation in the IPv6 dataplane, along with SID terminology
- RFC8754 section 2 defines Segment List as a list of IPv6 addresses
- RFC8754 section 3.3 defines an SR segment endpoint node, making the distinction between "segment or local interface."
- RFC8754 section 4.3 describes processing at segment endpoint node for either; a fib entry representing a locally instantiated SRv6 SID, or a local interface not instantiated as a SRv6 SID.
- RFC8754 section 5 describes the Intra-SR-Domain deployment model, where:
  - within the SR domain "Allocate all the SIDs from a block S/s"
  - within the SR domain “Assign all interface addresses from prefix A/a"
  - At node k [within the SR domain], all SIDs local to k are assigned from prefix Sk/sk

Darren

On Mar 11, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi Ron, I made no comment in this thread on draft-ietf-spring-network-programming.

Darren

On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Darren,

Didn’t we agree to close issue 66 because draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing header contains no text regarding SID/IPv6 address semantics. If that’s the case, how can you say that closing issue 66 implies WG consensus around SID/IPv6 address semantic proposed in draft-ietf-6man-network-programming?

                                                                                       Ron

Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:07 PM
To: EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Hi Andrew please see issue #66 for the closure record.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RN-QFuaCraX6vU74Vusek5FlDyBGgfC2Teh1Vz40nw0PBhWdPtA-SA3t_rxaFg4_$>

Darren

On Mar 9, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

Hi Darren

>  Hi Mark, the working group discussed the
 > association with RFC4291 and closed it with
 > the text in the document.

Can we get a reference to these discussions please - would just be useful to back and refresh memories and wasn’t able to find them

Thanks

Andrew

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------