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

stefano previdi <> Tue, 26 May 2020 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C453A0F60 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ilqou9Dq_PGn for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493083A0F56 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o15so2480717ejm.12 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cc+liYU74+pPFJAw1X38auEPjYMOlZwqa8oWePdPlVU=; b=LcFcjZjMlk75AVqUbg1MwSMfYZg9NzHAXlhY8V6H06qlMi2/bOkXV9tvzscS9fCdpF qckC9tOKjZcKU0ythuU3k8/xVPX3I9uCoTIzsdiYiJM2ohQSZ+9RzdWykLAw8iyreI89 nuN+tsKGjZ7KmpSu/okBKAZsNK2pTDclkwmzaDmMhyriN5y+SJ2FGgYgyu5eQ1bJ4d44 uvA82G5nG70B/cL1W7Jn7W+mlut5SQ0a22zUgYYj9MiTQWDfZP5Fl9YaiCYI6OwueOZE HcL4I+vrWLd8VDkViMQp4FWu5hrFZAnFK+VuOtQwCgO933xSAku5qirK10dMc0dB8xCx cYKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cc+liYU74+pPFJAw1X38auEPjYMOlZwqa8oWePdPlVU=; b=EUsyXFi+8jE+A2ZPU4H6SxD1SuXpOKNsoU8Av6f7oYF2ahw/Bv3fYqrPvJjK4CJjx5 zixY8NfPLOTCfs+F3AzNLaVgAIC/o02iISXCxAN022/e3gmNHMrXYD4OPnYcN4cZQueS SwCmiZB1WO5zVnDqvTTa2/v8dkjKTD3Hy6rzIzyAi8OWYQmi6FgEbevMZpJaj8d5oaDR Y8CkLNj/AU6sCATuEAtSNxcHqn3vIlALu3PrgNIkgKnoOhWDIeqX8b91enMGD8RsM1zc TmihlRTKS6f/tasZEVsZy8jH9nbn+usV1RZ2QDW4x4XcNsdioav59sWu6dxuLdjAtJCL NNxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532WVB3fVxWWrTAO30zdLZsO8b+sbbdNVmQDoXuSIBXNDwzW/Z13 bJOt91YD0vWkvYedgEIAt2Zgcg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZ/LnJj0ETw/VKf0pen5pxEubz9bJIg9dVxrkaX9ykFYSFK6q1719u6MamzMaBJXbdOZoAXg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:4426:: with SMTP id mv6mr1243952ejb.440.1590500404442; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j12sm19197397edv.47.2020. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 May 2020 06:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
From: stefano previdi <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:40:03 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Bob Hinden <>, IPv6 List <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:40:08 -0000


As author of the original SRH proposal, I follow with quite some interest the discussion around the need of compression of the segment list. At this stage I see at least 4 proposals, each of which brings some valid and interesting arguments:
. draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
. draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid
. draft-lc-6man-generalized-srh
. draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid
. (maybe there are more...)

Also, it looks to me that the ongoing discussion is focused only on one of the above. Are we going to re-spin the same debate for each of these or do we want the WG to conduct an analysis on all of them prior to select one (or maybe two) that would be candidate for adoption ? Certainly, I’d prefer the latter.

So, at this stage I don't support the adoption of draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr and would prefer to see the WG to start an exhaustive analysis on all of the proposals.


> On May 16, 2020, at 12:13 AM, Bob Hinden <> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------