Followup Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

Bob Hinden <> Tue, 14 July 2020 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436263A0863 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qu5O_XiXXXJP for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B80C3A085B for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 17so8427266wmo.1 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=so0C021dg9z0NPDXwbILa/9rLNzTdtQrr18R/9ULlI0=; b=uL6MZGJowkHIo3hImvrNmYHj+BQTYEn/VwgOwtNuOmONdh/Aed01FdSgvE/TuR2fW2 rjvG6dHkbB4FHY7ReG5Wq0KlTx0m0UAiCCJ7Ul5TzohOSAoS6FXxxYU2lfWGeqYmFleu HXaMxE0NTDtZ/CJAHAvZbhLtGeE1vj2niTItPEFiXnUYct1vgsVF7Hqw2ifQ9auXwwui joafMjhG0Q4sZFDvYHi9IYO5JaQ0mnZP7vU8SgJi8PVwoXNRHZl41zfGcR4NfTnRRTjP KPtLbmtfFFkRbtROYItQ3YBMCasCvESLqez2bEOhmqU1yaCsGstStoYUtKJ9iBSnH5i3 2Otw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=so0C021dg9z0NPDXwbILa/9rLNzTdtQrr18R/9ULlI0=; b=Hf03mcpXVpKpJX4+jLbVVaDeCGAyvlfgJIT/o+41NvGcuH2wW6lBMEZeOMNLo2bhow SC6P2jRVjwrHgfr19V39C9z6PKN/epwrhX2lsfZcbdErujDC9tU382Twz+v9hKgpbXCu xuZexi7DxvQsscF4wPDo6xexXINagznjLHZm+TPYR0eg+YJLeWk/MFXZ/2YajURy9eBN eWKH2fdIRMXH8vUZUhcAHl2GOEKoimDX1fVL7qBE6AP3H4bLlK9jRaRzDN60I8da7Prw X+EYAWjNfR5mPIeBpfNzw2uJBJQbs7YZ945U3nQ7flkuZAXVsaF5D56rlYn3jLnmq3g/ TMlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532i0jMlCUDvBJHoId7FqEBUpoCj0AEaSR3342VKP4C9wXiSZ8I8 IxxWPytgtxoJstdAl+N7xctQ2oJcrTs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVQtOwXt2Az1kRT+E+wUy5f8gFHkwqTxX5BuJcsPS3RcangDJFSIz38zFnHCme0iq+yX/zZg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7916:: with SMTP id l22mr4773403wme.115.1594748430876; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:d491:43d2:96e:300b? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:d491:43d2:96e:300b]) by with ESMTPSA id f15sm5386464wmj.44.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A451E63E-FFC6-406E-8BAB-149F483AF5F9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Followup Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:40:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, =?utf-8?Q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <>, Erik Kline <>
To: IPv6 List <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 18:44:42 -0000

Since we sent this message the Spring w.g. has created a design team to work on clarifying the SR over
IPv6 compression solutions.  See:

The chairs have reached an impasse on the adoption of this draft.  Bob thinks that the draft meets the criteria for adoption (that is, there is enough interest in the problem and no serious technical objections were raised that couldn’t be resolved), while Ole thinks the inter-area issues need to be resolved first and it is better to wait until the Spring design team reaches some technical conclusions before making an adoption decision.   We do agree that there is nothing close to a consensus that would be required for later advancement.  Our split is similar to what we saw on the mailing list regarding the call for adoption.  Not an ideal solution, but it is where we are.

We are deferring the adoption conclusion until after the Spring design team has produced some technical output.

The draft will remain an individual draft.   We will revisit its status after the Spring Design Team has progressed.

Bob & Ole

> On May 29, 2020, at 1:32 PM, Bob Hinden <> wrote:
> This email concludes the adoption call on "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)”.
> There have been requests to contact the Routing ADs on this topic, this has been started via our Internet ADs.
> The chairs and ADs will spend the next few weeks reviewing the responses and make a decision on adoption.
> This has been a very heated discussion with several instances of non-constructive behaviour.   Please exercise restraint on future posts.  We note that it doesn’t help to repeat the same thing multiple times or respond to every email.
> Bob & Ole
>> On May 15, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Bob Hinden <> wrote:
>> This message starts a two-week 6MAN call on adopting:
>> Title:          The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
>> Authors:        R. Bonica, Y. Kamite, T. Niwa, A. Alston, L. Jalil
>> File Name:      draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-21
>> Document date:  2020-05-14
>> as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.
>> Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change going forward.
>> This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.
>> The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been active in resolving issues raised on the list.
>> Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us an indication of the energy level in the working group
>> to work on this.
>> Regards,
>> Bob and Ole