Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 969053A05A0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ztJkNyp4myR3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6795C3A058F; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5530D80367; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:26:23 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, spring@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <1350080398.533463.1582750964295@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com> <21148BBD-D7CD-4A8A-9A17-0EE2AD812639@steffann.nl>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <76cee7d6-a2f1-524c-cd4d-455bae5a34e5@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:26:02 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21148BBD-D7CD-4A8A-9A17-0EE2AD812639@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MyRlPzZAV-lJ11ZPQn98ej8bXxQ>
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, 26 Feb 2020 21:26:28 -0000

On 26/2/20 18:20, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
>> ´╗┐So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the document forward?
> 
> Yes. As long as it doesn't violate existing RFCs and with that potentially causes trouble for implementations that expect those RFCs to be followed I'm fine with it. It's not something I would deploy, but I'm not going to stand in the way of those who want it if it's not going to hurt others.

Indeed, that's the underlying principle: don't violate existing specs, 
and if you mean to, propose a formal update of RFC8200.

(I don't remember of the top of my head if PSP was the only part of the 
document violating RFC8200, hence my general comment).


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492