Where to continue work on the Unified Identifier?

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 3FB89120878; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Qj-9AqKnWDVM; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5521612087B; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id v201so5452060lfa.11; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jAN5f8pKnEl6hoHAgXf/vhgb+iDYtA6Ge8xZdRSBuVw=; b=sBjWPwvVqFYUNiRterLP1vJo0NHiboujg1ngSDk0F4694PhLwDHVJL9GOiNfZ+WXLs gN+PnaREczgnyQSXSOVV++6ni4em6bVsPE0K4CRVbHZ9zLeHB2kDMQCzevjQufOFsWKg pRmVJDZ3dODHoNbGovMbyoag4ZeP2gERv0R29De6aNBZV5sy4unLe8ZO+/6AI7X/k8Hv NncjYddA9XPsbiQ1X4nfc/S0rFHJDnoV2Udy3ho06gFV0o/p4LEYnh9N9BXVq2HBMWHZ gqXAVze/yjgDE9kelWpDEwo/YYqpsf+1RN1V8G1hLt+yPqyIxHHMqSz6V7zZLWE1d/27 UzTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jAN5f8pKnEl6hoHAgXf/vhgb+iDYtA6Ge8xZdRSBuVw=; b=n8oB5N91heOz8N87DcqHwUkk2AT+mocqCMPXBaRtWWzoh5lE078JR4BvFYpoXY3bem X+aKSs7bH31HHwcU0TG8uyLHl6S5dr8eSKqrSDRu5kB/cfp5z0UXtpaCm6/iV1wxWWZ0 9nZcAkreNrRy1KEUnan+ut1nomDEUFajbi4dqi/H0si6kA6g6h+9EQELdFs1wmdOodaO 8zCf+9iKyeE/xaLYBdsoDBbNd86eC2ldGYi//y1QTthZRtdDoW/htvGn55W9YlfqxHvb 7Wtry3BMu5OD2ZeM3O4SaNhtaWuaBlNOhNRiaCUm1w6GfsbwBDYiNqNyTAUkoFT5T0aZ /tXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWA8ksiU/nPLVPwIvHuOwqyFYsGD2UBLvgMOdo5/XkuN1mKTtWR eSgRFKQNKxZpQt7Y4n3QLJODVF/QVb5zT10aKHmi+A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbHtqxlHwDqT5tsmCR8kTRw+E5Dk2r+onVZuwd3RW174dA7IXeWT0RPK5GD9OFdGJACogkgxcQa1OaHZdDe+4=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:97:: with SMTP id 145mr1756260lfa.98.1581372958026; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:15:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:15:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUSe11n4gh4Gxd-7bOEhpcLKfPqq6LB8CkPhR5BHuzZ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Where to continue work on the Unified Identifier?
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, spring-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006baf0c059e401588"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6FFPwVAXBp27Xvz_HItl5cA9iKY>
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 22:16:06 -0000

Dear Chairs of SPRING and 6man WGs,
on behalf of the authors of the Unified Identifier in SRH draft, I'm asking
for your consideration and suggestion. We're looking for your decision on
which WG may, at the time, become the adopter of this work. One the one
hand, as the draft proposes an update to SRH by allocating the new field,
6man WG seems as logical as it was the group that has led the work on SRH
specification. On the other hand, a significant part of the draft is on
using the Unified Identifier to realize the Segment Routing with SRH in an
IPv6 network.
Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Greg