Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Sun, 24 May 2020 05:45 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 CC5753A07C6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 22:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 bTAIHH24zlaA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 22:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471553A07C5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 May 2020 22:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0BD2B62BA5F53FC93152; Sun, 24 May 2020 06:45:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sun, 24 May 2020 06:45:27 +0100
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 24 May 2020 06:45:27 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.79]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sun, 24 May 2020 13:45:22 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Topic: Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Index: AQHWMY6DD09Yy5QAz0u23wVx9vDJew==
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 05:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A41922@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com>, <7E273000-3CEC-4FEF-B7E1-0F707C6E0F1E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7E273000-3CEC-4FEF-B7E1-0F707C6E0F1E@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A41922dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/13Nj7sBu-KWCxLaTnvl0Hs-tQdY>
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 05:45:33 -0000

Hi Eric,

Agree, I also believe that the authors will improve these two parts.

When I read the introduction, I see that the requirements come from the overhead introduced of header, I assume that this is a problem of SRv6, and we also can learn it from the previous revision of this document.  If not from SRv6, it is better to specify the requirements.

Regarding the security part, the rules should be settled down, two many discussions of it, it seems that it is not clear right now. As a foundational building brick, security is really important. Jingrong’s input may help.

Best,
Cheng







________________________________

李呈 Cheng Li
Mobile: +86-15116983550<tel:+86-15116983550>
Email: c.l@huawei.com<mailto:c.l@huawei.com>


From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)<evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
To: Bob Hinden<bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>;IPv6 List<ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Time: 2020-05-22 21:44:43

[Removing my internet area director hat for this post]

While I understand that the document will evolve, I cannot "throw my voice" yet for WG adoption because:
1) the justification for this I-D is a mere 9 lines in section 1 and there is requirement neither from other IETF WG nor from other SDOs;
2) the management and security considerations are really weak in the current draft [1].

Personally (and still no hat), I would prefer to see the above points fixed before adopting the document.

Regards

-éric

[1] I am sure that Ron Bonica and his co-authors will improve these sections.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 00:14
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

    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

     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr

    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



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