Re: Updated text regarding Mutability in the SRH Draft

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 E6E8D1200B2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 sYoRv-KZ0IuH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B518120025 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DC8K2gSJzwh3T; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1559091681; bh=8ME2CFHqiQZD4siOFYt/oen1Hx09NTbhPRH5dx97XDw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Tbo2Pp7yD9Y1PHNKexKnqzWDbmz7ZVfRGR6+Hx1qBvUckXjmgkgfz63QlqP40JxtH QkQ+vkjLMZdCxDaihFv9Gj/AqJWXKM6ivZXZxnKiCnMmfiMaetUDrjTk2A3IHGQrjk BlODHieUJ81d7owkDbkhBfCe6xs8SpFU16P9lAJ4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45DC8J60Mbzwh3R; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Updated text regarding Mutability in the SRH Draft
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <DDCAADDD-F1C6-44AF-B297-8445C3195F6F@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <66cd63f3-ccc9-4252-b0b4-67570b3e4301@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 21:01:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DDCAADDD-F1C6-44AF-B297-8445C3195F6F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HA-4X8HqK9MSJi6Den-GFBIx7pw>
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, 29 May 2019 01:01:24 -0000

Between the rewording for clarity, and the note at the end making clear 
that this effectively makes all those SRH fields mutable, the text i 
snow clear.

While such mutability is not my preference, I can live with it and we 
need to get this done.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/28/19 5:54 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Ole and I spent some time reviewing the email on the list and current text in <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>.  We would like to propose the following text in Section 2.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> OLD:
> 
> In the SRH, the Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, and Routing Type fields are
> defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200] as not mutable.  The Segments
> Left field is defined as mutable in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200].
> 
> Some of the other fields of the SRH change en route (i.e. they are
> mutable).  The SRH is processed as defined in Section 4.3 of this
> document, and uniquely per SID type.  The mutability of the remaining
> fields in the SRH (Flags, Tag, Segment List, Optional TLVs) are
> defined in that section, in the context of segment processing.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> In the SRH, the Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, and Routing Type fields are defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200] as not mutable.  The Segments Left field is defined as mutable in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200].
> 
> The mutability of the TLV value is defined by the most significant bit in the type, as specified in section 2.1.
> 
> Section 4.3 defines the mutability of the remaining fields in the SRH (Flags, Tag, Segment List) in the context of the SID type defined in this document.
> 
> New SIDs defined in the future MUST specify the mutability properties of the Flags, Tag, and Segment List.  Note, that in effect these fields are mutable.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> We think this should resolve the open issues regarding defining mutability in SRH.  Please let us know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob & Ole
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>