Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 317363A0C13; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 kKETll1LOAXh; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (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 05CDE3A0C64; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id s69so4038859pjb.4; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SogbNM14zVAfrZa5k9dv4U3nqDnSiNRhpMZ+UuW3Kik=; b=FEMPY9QvLjaL6iKKo/mTu7oq0UHVuqIYQ2sukrqvDM9S/dY/uutnRNjlOVmHdK2XTt qzsWxgZqRGIruG941JVVH3h3j87gipc1GU1aWty/VtPuxtGY9zGfGZT1Pkul/2jgQ++G kj/wjT8mszD0LAtTk7Sb+HKdcZfj+g2XVEE7md+dmiXx1PftqmNvhDLNh1Vj1S/gLODQ ha/WcrSJ7nmjTWe3quQ0VQh0fwdfvr0akxKh+r9HzBMvVh0rYEhLH2Wi0jPtKZP2lhgS GUcdw7+PQUT+WlngCl7B6+5EvcDVw8He6tokNy2xK/QaZIrQUcDMLMzG+vXgWfOjmhNj s97g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SogbNM14zVAfrZa5k9dv4U3nqDnSiNRhpMZ+UuW3Kik=; b=I0oPfWkRFFJDNuVd84KDahnn9hSY78jM+6ca7rCFEVtSep/nZlM897JWxhB7NEAAZK N7Iyf2S2q7K2VJSNL8kOKmdGIQUw6/nNKcBxVLmGpnSZoLuLJk0id7tBS/Opxu3eE54+ t3iaMKwUddf6E1NwAruc7QXXx22OY2uSXY0NukBxJU7dhuY4e0w6/sev5Ueyqi4FV+w6 w1BlJC+ZeQLon9gI7ZNHMzPjtTXxOplnbH4OeRtpVOAcWQO5dlbyy6HRy8i2gS+NlmyQ cz++PAGLtGoXcXqr5OzkEqnvYmtLfOWcasWbZsHrhx7GgboWDsrw5lVUPA3N7Ksy8I/G 8zOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530CHFR39IvYJMsRW1WvwbFTAUCj1C+wN39Izt7VUL3tZkwLatTG 2IKZkTb5BfA4EgQN3M6UVt/VJ19N
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmgnYP7X9dPdmm3PQEfflN+Aqn1zIcL0qKn1089sYQ5jxo5tbQhRGSudG6aimEx21bJ/AmNQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:154b:: with SMTP id y11mr904236pja.158.1590101309316; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x191sm1346104pfd.37.2020.05.21.15.48.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2020 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2C1AE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A22A123AFA7E7345087BAEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457041A967A6BBDA1C7EF0FDC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93a31c7f-a102-da59-d9a8-2585cd8e3c65@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:48:22 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB457041A967A6BBDA1C7EF0FDC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/L7ewq26D6pFMmMr5StchO9oe4kc>
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, 21 May 2020 22:48:33 -0000

On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing solution..
> “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications.”

If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding a new RH type is well within the scope of maintenance, IMHO. We have already done it quite recently.

In any case, legalistic arguments about WG charters are really not how we should take technical decisions. 

Regards
    Brian