Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 9431F120043 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 JI1qU5XStYyb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (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 4355412004F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id c15so4427343qkl.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cwT3SuE3rXU4/owaQtsRvAsglSZhaisVrfR2TX5NKh0=; b=p/z7sLl/qzfjA1YK1E4VPfyf1AHHgdyAe8FjIQj4l8yEtLIKFTPEcvTpptXGcT52Mt Anm33UYzpYPWjQH7b/XD56vqcca+rsCGaig/Vout18PX2FNOt4XubDctapz/q/7O7qPT 7ePv97G7Op9KWG9xhWdDMUTDMjOQhNF9Jed61uvFL0pAXFeUaN6IyWc1VpI7Pn4rAiY8 IcWOIrSBFh1xidHBJsv6yqRuR5jEJmW6Jt9ZM8e72sg5dQMBMHA6HazKjVGFLXOaKwem Q85BkQJKm6PIPDUx6+rTVGaIvP+J386rvAzML9XLq7XpCmjiM9ceC/bDsQnQt7eaYubG FXLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cwT3SuE3rXU4/owaQtsRvAsglSZhaisVrfR2TX5NKh0=; b=ESFVtryRyhFHo0AzBfj1wVS78Kt/CRst1ULUWlZeBxb9ogtzBqq13bAJjwryX1t4Gk xAmryqgBKOKnto60uJs8/7N+xLbWP3Mhr+cJBVVkj/KHHS05/4rF8Kv6t6SyXrreUhKh T27LL9OXO2XTHX7tc/uIKWGfcGMhUfSq7a8ypAlBTKnNn0/pmPvJ+hUpz/F76psnhZne f/xL0vd6PunxVYzKawLMFnGbHozOgWNas94SJvJFgNrcO0A/3SIcEo50gHHcN7tINosr itVjlc2AdsnpPJrnr6ZiXAqzio/9LzqMeRkYxbHkE9eahako9wF1zKmxCRaoT8uo+kGf LdRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVM9XfgxmNXePPDiwbbm6hUQ0ic/x+wloaLSGANosOPlYDPT/1Q h+ICd89GxQoXek8rppcePFZ3RL03AzqMrdQzZXuvlg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw06nmR912a6fcyxSvWEoPGtt67lBUGqHdeRBzMwApHt8ordtJ2QT7daqnN7oqehnDx5vVq7Y7pKa8PSh2h+sg=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ec10:: with SMTP id h16mr38876651qkg.215.1558635779014; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <588C586F-C303-418E-8D26-477C4B37CF92@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4245494B7E35A4F30797A084AE000@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3ED15D0E-EFAF-4991-89B6-C55DA439C0C0@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB42453B5AA1E9F4AA523E189CAE000@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BD45BC11-B857-4A1D-8694-C1875BF4F845@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB42459DB5F93B9C3C444BAA66AE010@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <75A91680-2051-47E6-9E58-1990396BB044@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB424536306A3635D73B40158CAE010@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E22E6013-DFC1-4878-8AEE-3F4C947E9FAF@cisco.com> <CALx6S36f7TtgHPJNO4b+Jz2eYEeXmaz8iFTgTF55WoOseAJy-A@mail.gmail.com> <3A1B80C3-9E9E-45C6-858B-C57867E2705A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A1B80C3-9E9E-45C6-858B-C57867E2705A@cisco.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:22:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S35RHPsoX5aw+H7eAwzXU3pUCbRph-O-pOdF7hmS03nYnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>
To: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ChLlvMAxE09lwBnpqnZJpyLONQA>
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:23:04 -0000

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:55 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Tom, read the paragraph below your question.
>
Darren,

I assume you mean this:

"The second part of this thread is about
draft-ietf-spring-network-programming. It defines a set of additional
functions that can be associated with a SID and names them End, End.X,
End.T, End.DX2, etc. It defines a registry to assign each of these SID
types a number."

But draft-ietf-spring-network-programming only mentions the term "SID
type" once and only mentions the IPv6 address SID type:

"SID: A Segment Identifier which represents a specific segment in
segment routing domain.  The SID type used in this document is IPv6
address (also referenced as SRv6 Segment or SRv6 SID)."

END, END.X, END.T are referred "Functions associated with a SID" as in
section 4, not as SID type. Are these SID types distinct from the IPv6
address SID type?

If this term is being used in a normative manner, for instance if the
mutability requirements are dependent on the SID type, then I think it
warrants a clear definition.

Tom



> > On May 23, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:23 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ron and Bob, this is not complicated.
> >>
> >> This document refers to "the SID type defined in section 4.3.1” vs calling it END.
> >> Other documents will refer to it as “the SID type defined in section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header”.
> >> This is simple and all we need to be concerned with for draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.
> >
> > Darren,
> >
> > I don't know what a "SID type" is, so it's hard to understand the
> > requirements reference SID types. Please provide a normative
> > definition for this term or a reference to the document containing the
> > definition of this term. And if multiple SID types are allowed then
> > obious question becomes how are different SID types distinguished from
> > one another in the protocol.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >>
> >> The second part of this thread is about draft-ietf-spring-network-programming.
> >> It defines a set of additional functions that can be associated with a SID and names them End, End.X, End.T, End.DX2, etc.
> >> It defines a registry to assign each of these SID types a number.
> >> This is how protocols (ISIS, OSPF, BGP, etc) distributing SIDs and identify their type for use at SR Source nodes.
> >> As mentioned on the SPRING alias, the definition of End in draft-ietf-spring-network-programming will get updated to better align with section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.
> >>
> >> Darren
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 22, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Works for me!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Juniper Internal
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:34 PM
> >>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> >>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>
> >>>
> >>> Ron,
> >>>
> >>>> On May 22, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob,
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the SID in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-nework-programming begin with the word "END". The following are examples:
> >>>>
> >>>> - END
> >>>> - END.X
> >>>> - END.DT4
> >>>>
> >>>> So, you are correct in saying that the word "END" doesn't do much to distinguish one SID from another. Maybe the naming convention should be:
> >>>>
> >>>> - SID
> >>>> - SID.X
> >>>> - SID.DT4
> >>>> - etc
> >>>
> >>> I think that would be better.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As long as we are consistent throughout the network programming draft, I am OK with the change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, we need a good collective noun for SIDs of all types. Neither SID nor SRv6 SID work well. If we use the word "SID", it becomes overloaded. The term "SRv6 SID" is a little too close to "SID" to prevent confusion.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps when meaning all SIDs, just say “all SIDs”.  When one specific SID, by it’s name SID, SID.X, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>                                                                                                       Ron
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juniper Internal
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:29 PM
> >>>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> >>>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron,
> >>>>
> >>>>> On May 22, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Darren,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We may have made life more difficult for the following reasons:
> >>>>
> >>>> How can anything be more difficult than it already is :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Customers are already talking about "The END SID”.
> >>>>> - At least two other drafts refer to "The END SID".  In the future, will they refer to "the otherwise nameless SID defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header”.
> >>>>> - The naming conventions that the chairs suggest introduces ambiguity. Does the term "SID" refer to all SIDs (END.X, END.DT4, etc.) collectively? Or does the term "SID" refer to one particular SID that is defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.
> >>>>
> >>>> SID would refer to the SID defined in the SRH draft.   I note that in RFC 8402, this appears to be called SRv6 SID.  That seems to be consistent.
> >>>>
> >>>> When we reviewed the changes in what became the -19 draft, we found the use of “END SID” confusing.  We went back to see if there were other kinds of SIDs defined (for example is there a START SID, MIDDLE SID, etc.), but there isn’t.   We thought it would be better to just say SID.   If new SIDs are later defined elsewhere they can have different names that distinguish them from the SID defined in the SRH draft.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If the chairs insist on changing the name of the END SID, let's at least give it a new name.
> >>>>
> >>>> To be clear, we didn’t insist, we made a suggestion that Darren adopted:
> >>>>
> >>>> “We think calling it “END SID” makes it harder to understand, we had to go back to see if there were other SIDs defined that would have different behavior.   Since there is only one kind of SID defined, like FIRST SID.  We wonder if it can be just called “SID” and if in the future other SIDs are defined they can be called something else, for example "FOO SID”, or "SID 2”.  This is not a showstopper, but might make the document clearer.”
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>