Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn> Fri, 10 February 2023 01:35 UTC
Return-Path: <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
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 8F63EC17CEA6; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:35:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C_r-KJ5b2Jej; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.223]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBF7C17CE9C; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:35:01 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:56194.1009713948
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-10.133.8.209 (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 42F602800EF; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:34:52 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 66040161@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([10.133.8.209]) by app0025 with ESMTP id bc8fa48ea8a7476eb3f3847f6e78e2bf for jmh@joelhalpern.com; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:34:58 CST
X-Transaction-ID: bc8fa48ea8a7476eb3f3847f6e78e2bf
X-Real-From: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 10.133.8.209
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:34:52 +0800
From: Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
To: jmh <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <c51e4a3f-5e6e-5386-4e6a-23709d52c1fe@joelhalpern.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.24.96[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2023021009345111942812@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart747473540665_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ch4ffNliVyYFbY1lm14f58dyYN4>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:35:03 -0000
Hi authors and all, I support the adoption of this draft, since it is about Alternate Marking Method for SRv6, I think Spring wg is the suitable place to do it. In addition, section 2.1 mentions the Controlled domain, it looks a little abrupt, I wander whether it can be placed in a separate section of deployment consideration? Best regards Chongfeng From: Joel Halpern Date: 2023-02-02 08:43 To: SPRING WG List CC: 6man Subject: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method This call is for the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark This email starts the WG adoption call for the subject draft (as requested by the authors, with apologies from the WG chairs for how long it has taken to kick this out.) This call will run through the end of the day on Feb 16. Pleaes read the whole email as there are a few points, and it is not that long. Please comment on whether you think this topic is something you think the spring WG should work, whether you think this draft is a good starting point for such work, any issues or concerns you have, and whether you would be willing to help be contributing and / or reviewing the work if the WG does choose to work on it. 6man is copied for their information, as this is different from but related to an extension header proposal in front of 6man. Authors and named contributors, please confirm to the list that all known, relevant, IPR has been disclosed. If it has note, please remedy this gap. The spring chairs have noted one aspect of this draft that caught our eye, and we would appreciate WG members who comment on the adoption to consider, and if possible opine, on this. As we read this draft, as distinct from the related 6man extension header work, this causes the recorded altmarks to only be updated at routers identified in the SRH segment list. (We presume this would include all identified points in a compressed container.) We could not tell from the document what the value was for this as distinct from getting the measurements at all routers. Do WG members understand and agree that it does have value? As a lesser point, we consider that one quote in the draft is misleading and will likely need to be reworded in the near future. The draft say "SRH TLV can also be used to encode the AltMark Data Fields for SRv6 and to monitor every node along the SR path." It is unclear if these was intended to mean all routers (most of which would not see this TLV) or if it was intended to refer to only those routers identified in the SRH, in which case we presume it will be reworded. Thank you, Joel -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Heade… Joel Halpern
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Haoyu Song
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Cheng Li
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Mauro Cociglio
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … xiao.min2
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Haoyu Song
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… 庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本 部)
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … xiao.min2
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Xuewei Wang
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Aijun Wang
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Nilo Massimo
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Joel Halpern
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… bruno.decraene
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola