Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 DDB3E3A0A29; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Ia4a+fgZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=sfl3WFE4
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 GfkT1wqXUf3W; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13523A0A4F; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19349; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590607128; x=1591816728; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Zjh36R4ZEN+C9bYyo3O8O1Dc+pIS0dJqVa6wDJegWzg=; b=Ia4a+fgZGu9DQqR9whIYY2WjM6egTcs663evcU7Ysrnho5KPBbt+Eo8/ t3DUZGnogN62HiYeBlTv59VOrBbupqAfY6PPK8ZeHz005ZRsKIJaZgZVj 8S5UFyVwlrNX4QtodbCTJZc+SG7Vhh+6oRCRtlbMKS1B778O0/a32HpDU I=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ANp+5YRdWZE2D1L/PUnYmXJNLlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwaQAdfd7PFFgqzdtKWzEWAD4JPUtncEfdQMUh?= =?us-ascii?q?IekswZkkQmB9LNEkz0KvPmLklYVMRPXVNo5Te3ZE5SHsutYVrRo3T05jkXSV?= =?us-ascii?q?3zMANvLbHzHYjfx828y+G1/cjVZANFzDqwaL9/NlO4twLU48IXmoBlbK02z0?= =?us-ascii?q?jE?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DhAAC/u85e/51dJa1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGBeAUBAQsBgSAvUgdvWC8sCoQbg0YDjRmUAIRngS6BJANVCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQwBASUIAgQBAYFQgVtFVBmBfwIkNgcOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVXDIV?= =?us-ascii?q?1FhEdAQEsCwERAUMHAgQwJwQBDRkOgwQBgX5NAy4BAgykOAKBOYhhdoEygwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQWBMgEDBIN7GIIOAwaBOAGCY4lRDxqBQT+BOAwQghgHbIJnAgIagXaCZzO?= =?us-ascii?q?CLZErPIYlmycKglSIKpA2HZ4IhQeLS4lwk3kCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVoELoFWcBU?= =?us-ascii?q?7KgGCCgEBMlAYDZBADBcVgzqFFIVCdDcCBgEHAQEDCXyLKwGBDwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,442,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="514131209"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2020 19:18:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04RJIlZO002950 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18:47 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:18:47 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:18:46 -0400
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:18:46 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=S2dm+m0YtKm/AYsHR5thvyTCtQxDtMHcwTfccT2YJeJ2KwM4z49rwUF3n3+EqmkMxj5uA0CKEJIWYhkPY8WwW7N8ItcDmVLE6+2wQK7DyEFBVJXX55sKjLEn4iF7ht9tRldSTTAerh81fELgRmFFby2ZOu7TyqWQQIh/DQZNDRmdEXoP/SnCo2ANdQp9i84JPIipHf3kjcJxe4X9w/TQ0OCzrBqjYPZANnZE6CotgIu/KTMxo80CV5ALSW9XA4NvwytWermFcaAwkdWrp+mLBoreBTZhTj6aPpXe0EQKCTflKldJBPPR/YA0337c9UbldxPnen2JR/cS/8wj8zpgyg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Zjh36R4ZEN+C9bYyo3O8O1Dc+pIS0dJqVa6wDJegWzg=; b=mm4vJYAlZBVaoDSQBic4d0wUubYVAXdnwqS0CikCAsrWDvhIyibF2eLj0AuFkoJdd4GCiXOikFnbXEVxwP5dfeQ3/qTE7N9Ee3pYiajkftLOV16+XlGt/9CvlZbJC9W8cMgMZgvJ9EQli58rsf1wBGIHhlJqVE2PryXfCzJlJ0WDwwpTcXh32opE1FbTpQqQ/CLukNI1PcUOApVsUcXHMioNi/x9F28wT9mAQC5jNiosN01YjE21X/6/eWxCZTDRjMyp577/WcdY8fvt1U2oINh/mcdEDn2PBKaq9OB85BNrtVwBn0WSlo5NRywIiwDCDErD0irvdyjaqBbM2vsu7A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Zjh36R4ZEN+C9bYyo3O8O1Dc+pIS0dJqVa6wDJegWzg=; b=sfl3WFE4tx/Z0BXfEJz31gN4LlvHbRFU4xdBcYA1txEIv4lkyj1CDLR+5oQU7E/44+9fTJ8/e7i+Z/cLcraGi2Dc1uYGQ9EmoRbThrtugX+uKZk04GhWmQlnIMAXrWRZTY0S9pKZKkg2Oj7Ev/42FUo6v1VQ8/ZhQBozttGAbmM=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2aa::11) by DM6PR11MB3164.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:58::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3045.17; Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18:45 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fcce:4248:b4d5:470b]) by DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fcce:4248:b4d5:470b%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.018; Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18:45 +0000
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl>
CC: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Topic: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Index: AQHWNFukLM0xAvUWK0W7ISBmqA7+6g==
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18:45 +0000
Message-ID: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
authentication-results: nokia.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nokia.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [47.185.212.154]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dea30a26-2d68-4b06-e23b-08d80272c6a4
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3164:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB3164B683FDD12FF3E526DD05DEB10@DM6PR11MB3164.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /Pm1rysNzllSr74mFeJ2zD5cFJhjEQqO4i7bbmOWiRbNHY8MtgLXUOB+12L0QQj2HXjeciQw2p+r84D6jgVaGcfMrbsB9YVP1rnxvC6tdT3PmKjsO+4ekrvz7p0tV4L90r+tSiN6Ypvi2NlvYB0p4OGCQoHkxewgxznoAtmcHLzUFCLTIt6bY/TuvVnrR7gDeg+BwlhlyBmVfYz4R8gmxaZ92PZ1EHGQbwERCj8wEib4gZAXfvHSyCWJZvwpYtSSkPs5OTDV7Ozsi/pA9c/FS5F31fUxQOnqmM6NAOqT29HD3ABnXsnZ+7d2ajve89aY7WyLerXVCXFpLHe9dda5Pk3h2HaiCGkbf7ivBhL3VIWIuce1YbXyrxULuoyOpVcVBlfc6VXWNLO2DFDmJRjliQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(136003)(366004)(166002)(36756003)(4326008)(2616005)(6506007)(54906003)(110136005)(966005)(186003)(316002)(33656002)(296002)(26005)(478600001)(71200400001)(6512007)(2906002)(86362001)(76116006)(66556008)(66446008)(8936002)(6486002)(8676002)(64756008)(66476007)(107886003)(91956017)(66946007)(5660300002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_75BF23175D284038ABB131C588ACD165ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dea30a26-2d68-4b06-e23b-08d80272c6a4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 19:18:45.3932 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 9iLvaxXU/3mkZ+RabE0q3Uz7d+FBYjGvbh1hJYwnpVOxtpqSxxV7/6w5BuHTAkoP
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3164
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BeVoHakLA50vvHy-Y0E6rnThCp0>
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:18:59 -0000

WH> My position remains that RFC8663 is a valid alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of CRH.


The industry widely supports RFC8663.



Instead of denying the evidence, could the CRH authors and proponents finally understand that people are not opposed to new ideas?



People are reminding a long-standing practice of the IETF process. Before tackling a new piece of work, a working group must perform a due diligence on

  1.  whether this new work is redundant with respect to existing IETF protocols,
  2.  whether this new work would deliver genuine benefits and use-cases.



It is factually and logically clear to the working-group that the currently submitted CRH documents.

  1.  fail to position CRH with respect to existing standard widely supported by the industry (e.g., RFC8663)
  2.  fail to isolate new benefit or use-case [1]



This positive collaborative feedback was already given in SPRING.

The CRH authors may change this analysis. They need to document 1 and 2.



Why did the CRH authors not leverage this guidance in SPRING WG?

This was also the chair's guidance in Montreal [2] and Singapore [3]



All the lengthy discussions and debates on the mailing list could be avoided if only the CRH authors would tackle 1 and 2.



The CRH authors must tackle 1 and 2.



  *   This is the best way to justify a/the work from the IETF community and b/ the hardware and software investment from vendors.
  *   True benefits must be present to justify such a significant engineering investment (new data-pane, new control-plane).



Thanks



Regards … Zafar



[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W3gO-dni2tB4nG9e13QsJnjFgG8/

[2] https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-105-spring?useMonospaceFont=true

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/