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

I support strongly the adoption of this draft.

First, as to the SRH/CRH discussion, please either clearly define and apply
the _same_ standard and discussion to all those header drafts or don't
apply any "asks" (security, a "must" for architecture and other real
concerns as well as herrings thrown out) otherwise I'm not sure what
"process" is being run here. Something that doesn't have a clear, objective
process should not apply any "decision standard" since it will only produce
a race to the bottom in logical fallacy emails which some of the threads
here suffered from already. If you supply the standard, either adopt all
drafts that fulfill the standard and work on them or reject all/stop
working on them.

The extension is simple & IMO practical if one needs to source route stuff
(which is architecturally and operationally a discussion in itself
independent of this draft of course) and gives careful consideration both
to practical ASIC implementation and those pesky things like OAM. Also, it
does not change the semantics of an IPv6 address to be "something else we
can change daily as to its semantics" which always triggered my feeble
security concerns detector.

--- tony

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:45 AM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> Darren…
>
>
>
> Can you please explain the double standard here – where the additional
> development on segment routing was done in other working groups
> (IDR/LSR/SPRING etc) – but – last I checked –
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26
>
>
>
> That 6man – does refer to this working group right?  Or am I confused.
>
>
>
> Now – let me be very clear before someone claims we’re trying to replace
> the SRH – which is not the case – I am merely contrasting your arguments to
> another case where a routing header was developed – and the rest of the
> work – was done elsewhere as needed, and which you had nom issue with.
>
>
>
> So – to be frank – from my perspective  and speaking only for myself – I
> see this as yet another red herring popped out of thin air.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From: *ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Darren Dukes (ddukes)"
> <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 17:00
> *To: *Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
>
>
>
> Hi Bob and Ole.
>
>
>
> I’m not supporting the draft for adoption by 6man. I know you’re shocked
> ;).
>
>
>
> I have one main concern with 6man adoption that I think many can agree
> with.
>
>
>
> This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit
> identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which
> this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to
> drive.
>
>
>
> Others have said “this is not 6man’s concern” and I agree because 6man is
> an ipv6 maintenance WG, not the segment mapping working group.  I believe
> the authors should find a WG with that concern to drive this work. I know
> starting work without requirements is fun and exciting, but you will likely
> end up at the wrong destination.
>
>
>
> Brian had one suggestion on this topic.
>
>
>
> In the past I’ve suggested SPRING, or if the authors desire, a BOF to
> build consensus and gather requirements for its parent SRm6 work or some
> variant of it.
>
>
>
> I hope the authors, WG, chairs and AD consider these points during this
> adoption call.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>   Darren
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bob Hinden <
> bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14 PM
> *To:* IPv6 List
> *Cc:* Bob Hinden
> *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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>