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

Agreed. I do not support the adoption of this document…

Thanks,
Tetsuya

> On May 22, 2020, at 4:07 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcamaril=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Bob, Ole,
>  
> I do not support the adoption of this document. Reasons below:
>  
> 1.- 6man is an IPv6 maintenance group. This proposal is defining a new routing header with no sort of document, input or requirement from the Routing Area.
> While certainly this group does not need any sort of permission from routing, uncoordinated protocol development is harmful. This point has already been made by others.
>  
> 2.- This is not a standalone document. Despite from the document stating that the CRH-FIB will be populated by means of CLI, I think everyone in this group would oppose to that; configuring all 2^16 labels manually in all routers is an operational burden… 
> We will need control plane extensions such as draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions, but again, we do not have the requirements or use-cases from Routing Area as to know what we need to support/build.
>  
> 3.- The authors have not provided a document discussing applicability,  use-cases or requirements. This approach of building a solution without understanding the problem is in my opinion utterly wrong.
> This is already causing confusion as for example in the 16b vs 32b discussion.
>  
> Also, from BCP22:
> “   Standards track documents must include a description of the protocol.
>    This description must address the protocol's purpose, intended
>    functions, services it provides, and, the arena, circumstances, or
>    any special considerations of the protocol's use.
>  
>    The authors of a protocol specification will have a great deal of
>    knowledge as to the reason for the protocol.  However, the reader is
>    more likely to have general networking knowledge and experience,
>    rather than expertise in a particular protocol.  An explanation of
>    it's purpose and use will give the reader a reference point for
>    understanding the protocol, and where it fits in the Internet.  The
>    STD 54/RFC 2328 was recommended to the STDGUIDE working group as
>    providing a good example of this in its "Protocol Overview" section.
>  
>    The protocol's general description must also provide information on
>    the relationship between the different parties to the protocol. This
>    can be done by showing typical packet sequences.
>  
>    This also applies to the algorithms used by a protocol.  A detailed
>    description of the algorithms or citation of readily available
>    references that give such a description is necessary.”
>  
> In summary, we are polling whether to adopt a document that is ignoring BCPs, doing uncoordinated development within the IETF areas, and with a bunch of unanswered technical questions on the mailer.
> Additionally, I believe this proposal has issues with scalability, and requires additional ASIC resources as recognized by the authors [1].
>  
> Thanks,
> Pablo.
>  
> [1].- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/aLhIQ2btTfNkJ4ghruuXbm3zY30/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/aLhIQ2btTfNkJ4ghruuXbm3zY30/>
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: sábado, 16 de mayo de 2020 0:14
> 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 <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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------