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

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Works for me!


Juniper Internal

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:34 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:29 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>