Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 15 May 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BA83A0877; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eQDow-GEowbH; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 109F83A0876; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CD15283722; Fri, 15 May 2020 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>, Andrew Alston <>, John Scudder <>, "" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 16:40:29 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 19:40:52 -0000


I will be very open and straightforward:

* I don't care myself about CRH. i.e., I'm not pushing that effort 
forward, and have no kind of agenda whatsoever around it.

* Your claims are attacking myself, because you seem to imply that the 
appeal was intended as a political attack against the spring chairs or 
responsible AD, or to benefit other work such as CRH.

In that light, I'm going to be quite open and transparent:

1) I asked numerous times for the Spring chairs and responsible AD to 
become involved, so that I wouldn't have to formally appeal the spring 
process. I did it multiple times, both on-list and off-list -- I even 
did so on the mailing-list, and well before spring wglc 
consensus was declared. Other people (please see the references in the 
appeal text) did the same. But the chairs and AD dismissed our concerns, 
and went ahead.

2) I made it public, numerous times, that I would Appeal the decision. 
That was even reflected in the document shepherd's writeup for the 
network-programming draft.

3) I have been the one that wrote 100% of the text in the Appeal. Not 
99%, but 100%. In the process, I asked quite-publicly, on-list, that 
folks send me the issues that they had raised and felt that had been 
dismissed, such that the Appeal would be as complete and well-documented 
as possible.

I had the Appeal text ready a week or so after Spring WGLC consensus was 
declared, but had to wait to submit it because it took the Spring chairs 
over a month to reflect their decision on the datatracker.

In the mean time, I contacted many 6man participants, and sent them my 
draft version of the appeal, asking if they had any comments or corrections.

I was planning to submit the Appeal alone. But while doing the last pass 
on the appeal text, I happened to talk to Andrew and Sander (Appeal 
co-signers) about the issue of the IPv6 address space involved. And 
during that last exchange, they expressed that they would like to sign 
the appeal (noting that it was up to me).

I agreed with them to sign the Appeal, in the same way that I would have 
agreed with any other participant signing the Appeal if they agreed with 
the points being raised by the Appeal.

4) It is not my business whether folks (say, CRH authors or whoever), 
benefit from the Appeal. Because my motivation for submitting the Appeal 
has been my technical concerns with the network-programming draft, and 
with the lack of transparency (at best) of the procedures that led to 
Spring shipping that document to the IESG. Other times I had experienced 
other arbitrary decisions, and experience has shown that silently 
accepting those turns out to be a bigger problem over time, and they 
kind of become established practice. So this time it was "enough is 
enough" for me.

So, as far as the Appeal is concerned, I hope you can rectify your 
statements, because they are, at best, defamatory and unfounded.


On 15/5/20 13:43, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Now that you mentioned you are “SHOCKED that more people cannot see the 
> smoke and mirrors” …
> let me remind everyone.
> CRH work is to propose an alternative encapsulation in SPRING against SRH.
> There are several SRH/SRv6 net pgm compliant compression techniques that 
> are far better than CRH proposal (in efficiency) and that requires no 
> SRH change and no SRv6 CP change [list-of-competing-solutions].
> It appears, not able to defend against that argument, the authors took a 
> strange path:
>   * Launched a political attack against the SPRING chairs and AD via
>     calls for resignation and subsequent appeals resulting in derailing
>     work in SPRING, including all work on compression (of which SRm6 was
>     one option).
>   * Removed all reference to SRm6 from this CRH document.
>   * Attempted to get 6man to adopt CRH ahead of SPRING resuming its work
>     on compression. 
> Yes, people can see the smoke and mirrors.
> *Ref: List of competing solutions in SPRING*
> [1] 
> [2] 
> [3] 
> [4]
> [5] 
> Thanks
> Regards … Zafar
> *From: *Andrew Alston <>
> *Date: *Friday, May 15, 2020 at 9:15 AM
> *To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <>om>, John Scudder 
> <>et>, "" <>
> *Cc: *"" <>rg>, "" <>
> *Subject: *RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
> Zafar,
> Let me give another perspective on this.
> In Montreal – people screamed – no use case – a use case was provided – 
> and for months after – people kept screaming – no use case – until they 
> couldn’t scream it anymore because the mails showed clearly that use 
> cases had been supplied
> Then – we moved onto the “We need an architecture” – and you yourself 
> misquoted a participant in 6man claiming they demanded an architecture – 
> when they clearly didn’t – see the interim meeting minutes – and when it 
> was claimed that this is a building block –
> It became – omg its an rh0 replacement – and pick on that aspect of it.
> (Those last 2 might be in different orders)
> Then – there was this bizarre claim that a vendor “wanted” something 
> despite the fact that they hadn’t said it.
> What I can say is – rather that come with technical arguments against it 
> – what I am seeing is smoke and mirrors – pulling things out of thing 
> air – twisting words – trying to mis-portray things – and the only 
> reason for that is – because there are no solid technical arguments 
> against it.  I am SHOCKED that more people cannot see the smoke and 
> mirrors and twisting of words going on here.
> Because from my perspective – when someone runs out of ideas – they 
> start making things up out of thin air – one after another – please – 
> see my earlier email about obstruction and how its not helping any of us.
> Lets debate the document on technical merits – what are your direct 
> technical arguments against this – or are we continue to continue with 
> misdirection?
> Andrew
> *From:* ipv6 <> *On Behalf Of *Zafar Ali (zali)
> *Sent:* Friday, 15 May 2020 15:54
> *To:* John Scudder <>rg>;
> *Cc:*;
> *Subject:* Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
> Hi John,
> You’ll recall what the 6man chairs said in Montreal and Singapore 
> regarding CRH:
> During Spring session [1]:  
> “[Bob Hinden]  As 6man co-chair, would like to understand whether SPRING 
> is interested in this work.”
> Bob reiterated the same message during Singapore IETF 
> []
> “Regarding the Spring related drafts … <snip> We did not see very much 
> value in also discussing them in 6man.   Once items have been adopted in 
> Spring, we think it is appropriate to adopt the IPv6 relevant parts, but 
> that’s not yet the case now.”
> Nothing has changed w.r.t. the competing solution review in Spring since 
> Singapore.
> Instead of following the chair’s direction, in Feb 2020 the authors of 
> CRH just simply removed normative reference to the SRm6 to get 6man 
> adopt CRH ahead of SPRING compression discussion..
> To achieve the said goal, the authors of CRH draft first positioned it 
> as a replacement of RH0.
> Now RH0 has been removed from CRH draft.
> There is no longer any architecture and use-case to justify adoption 
> call for CRH.
> It is clear to all that the current draft and adoption request is an 
> attempt to circumvent the standard practice.
> Ref:
> [1]
> Video: Under: Ron’s session on IPv6 Support for Segment Routing: 
> SRv6+       (10:44)
> Thanks
> Regards … Zafar
> *From: *ipv6 < <>> on 
> behalf of John Scudder < 
> <>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:02 PM
> *To: *" <>" 
> < <>>
> *Cc: *" <>" < 
> <>>
> *Subject: *Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
> I’m a little confused about this conversation and I’d like to ask the 
> chairs for clarification. My actual questions are at the end of this 
> long(ish) message, and can be summarized as (1) does 6man require 
> consent from SPRING before defining routing headers, and (2) what 
> criteria are the chairs using to decide when an adoption call is OK?
> It seems to me there are at least two, only vaguely related, 
> conversations going on. One of them is a debate about the assertion that 
> 6man can’t even consider taking up CRH unless SPRING approves it. The 
> other is a more free-wheeling line of questioning about “what is CRH for 
> anyway”?
> I presume both of these relate to Ron’s request for an adoption call. 
> Here’s what the minutes from the interim have:
>     Bob: Thank you Ron. I think it's too early for adoption call.
>     Ron: What is needed to get to adoption call.
>     Bob: I can't answer right now.
>     Ron: Can I ask on list?
>     Bob: OK.
>     Ole: Related to what's going on in spring.
> Too bad we have no audio recording, but that’s not too far from my 
> recollection. Anyway, I don’t think I’ve seen this answered on list yet, 
> so I’m asking again.
> Regarding the SPRING-related process stuff:
> I have quite a bit of history with how SPRING was chartered; I was one 
> of the original co-chairs and helped write the charter, god help me. I 
> can tell you for certain there was no intent that SPRING should have 
> exclusive ownership of source routing in the IETF, the name isn’t a 
> power-grab, it’s a clever backronym, as we do in the IETF. If one entity 
> in the IETF were to take charge of all source routing, that sounds more 
> like a new area than a WG. But don’t take my word for it, go read the 
> various iterations of the charter. As anyone who’s looked at the Segment 
> Routing document set can tell, Segment Routing is one, very specific, 
> way of doing source routing. As Ketan and others have pointed out, it’s 
> a pile of architecture plus the bits and pieces to instantiate that 
> architecture. That is fine, but the idea that merely because a 
> technology might be used to instantiate part of that architecture, it’s 
> owned by SPRING, is overreach. Just because a sandwich is a filling 
> between two pieces of starch, doesn’t mean every filling between two 
> pieces of starch is a sandwich. [1]
> But at any rate, the question for the chairs is: do you think 6man needs 
> SPRING’s permission in order to consider adopting CRH? Does 6man need 
> permission from SPRING for all routing headers, or just some, and if 
> it’s just some, what characterizes them?
> Regarding the more general “what is CRH for anyway” stuff:
> This seems to me to be exactly the kind of discussion one would normally 
> have in the context of an adoption call. Why is it not being had in that 
> context? To rewind back to the interim, if it’s still “too early for 
> adoption call”, what has to happen for it not to be too early?
> Thanks,
> —John
> [1]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> <>
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1