Re: Who is the design ultimate authority over IPv6? (Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 07 March 2020 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 195933A1B1D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 GWx26idIzWZB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45B0E3A1B1C for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD88A803D4; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 22:56:16 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Who is the design ultimate authority over IPv6? (Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup><89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com> <16536_1576089460_5DF13774_16536_366_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D273AD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAO42Z2z2s92yitCC0eLrNO3dXe_EarRSUZq8GmJ=QRdZ59d0ag@mail.gmail.com> <64E8151B-DF45-4F30-A4AD-673E37A482DD@employees.org> <738133cf-1b87-90b3-614f-470b5546eedf@gmail.com> <CALx6S35=NWNu9iV7FU=zhmOwjB5T_WswyS13skpqfDfvL=G_jQ@mail.gmail.com> <1ea7ab65-7a07-5c78-aac7-bf202051a43a@gmail.com> <d1f32cb2-9f43-46cb-8585-319726e750b9@joelhalpern.com> <CAO42Z2wvCuj4YxBhmBAeh2yZdxi8uYy45o5gQNyEbHVGqu+_Eg@mail.gmail.com> <03a72a64-f7b7-e21a-b4b1-904fdec46203@joelhalpern.com> <CAO42Z2yY=KRbNjHwEofyGEFEYKcz0bEg73mjG=+c+RyRF8JRPw@mail.gmail.com> <724735ae-61ee-6e66-376d-4c769ea8b942@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <be3c5c21-f6fe-cc4b-d600-7f1c46db98e4@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 03:13:53 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <724735ae-61ee-6e66-376d-4c769ea8b942@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0n8dzPUcKPjsxc8nxYqd6LgJEGQ>
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 21:56:25 -0000

On 7/3/20 00:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[....]
>>
>> RFC 4291:
>>
>> "2.1.  Addressing Model
>>
>>   IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.
>>     An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface.  Since each
>>     interface belongs to a single node, any of that node's interfaces'
>>     unicast addresses may be used as an identifier for the node."
>>
>>
>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26:
>>
>> "4.3.  SR Segment Endpoint Node
>>
>>   When an SRv6-capable node receives an IPv6 packet, it performs a
>>     longest-prefix-match lookup on the packets destination address.  This
>>     lookup can return any of the following:
>>
>>         * A FIB entry that represents a locally instantiated SRv6 SID
> 
> I'll bet you a beer next time I'm in Melbourne that the implemenations
> all assign such SIDs to the loopback interface. What else can "locally
> instantiated" mean in any vaguely Unix-like O/S?
> 
> What makes me feel upset is using an IPv6-address-shaped object to
> convey semantics rather than location, 

Is it segment-routing-header doing tihs, or other subsequent documetns 
such as network-programming?



> but as Joel said this went right
> through the process 

That ship has sailed, but, if you ask me, I don't think many 6man'ers 
reviewed the document to the extent we review others.


> and for reasons that I don't know has been in
> AUTH48 for 134 days.

I guess the... AD should know?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492