Re: What 's the process?

"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ddukes@cisco.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 D86641208FA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:10:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Nlz0trT9; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=LByCEWLy
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 gR8YM5bNZ4W2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E26F1208FE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:10:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19665; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1582135803; x=1583345403; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=02MMdbKXTuYeTicHAG1c/4Dr8ay60qshflfpXHX3xSY=; b=Nlz0trT9uVXczyMjt3Jsl111AOanX/Fg73JPpi9kDuZCi5NhAuOw4WD/ maksF/METGZ3/NZN8WCGeHLLD+PFFUaJBlrngATE17SUg0/tj8GTF3XTd wNFk56ah/Kq+C8HNYUK/GMVh90Y5HC36lYDYmlMM+xeUIAAJtgMUO/Elf g=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AScUM7BQ0fJNxml0ZSgZh6Y++Odpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESUDNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOiA2AcdPT3du/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CXBQCTeU1e/4kNJK1mHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgXuBVFAFbFggBAsqCodQA4pwgl+TMIRhglIDVAkBAQEMAQEYAQU?= =?us-ascii?q?PAgQBAYRAAoIEJDgTAgMNAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFZgEBAQEDAQEQLgEBLAQ?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQsEAgEIDgMEAQEoBycLFAkIAQEEDgUbB4MEAYF9TQMuAQ6jOgKBOYhigie?= =?us-ascii?q?CfwEBBYFDQYM8GIIMCYE4hSCHBBqBQT+BEScggkw+gmQBAQIBAYFoJhE5gku?= =?us-ascii?q?CLI1uiGUkmR4KgjuHT48RHIJJfYcejmCBZ5dokkwCBAIEBQIOAQEFgT8qIoF?= =?us-ascii?q?YcBUaISoBgkEJRxgNjh2Dc4UUgV2DYnQCgSeMWgEwXwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,461,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217";a="440413042"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Feb 2020 18:09:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01JI9gbF006612 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:09:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:09:41 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:09:41 -0600
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:09:40 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=g37qtr1upmB6/OLxoL/FeZLmKXMp7UL5t3aHiMuHalBJLaQpPfPJhsrZOSWdVvW2wXaeY7Q4YTBr8byAMlUUhjl1B8DIRoaa8fpfYQsriEdThJ6IyDqnhHr9Tt0x8L3UU2uunqRMqLcokV6nn1ztbNAoy00ymVHfz/9KgmQhcM5l0MBIN/IUkU5tqDEEB0nEKBHt2REWxrUd6O8i6o75VzYmX+JN0vKDW6lPXfi50cJjw1JlxqW1kIhjzZIxp5Po+z36ZTv/hBSh/StGG6bk1a33exYWZYa6Dn0vOtjHt4e4H30x1kq+vR4o3RG66jiq5imHrS2P/qBJcEpi4gtVNA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eglwN3vasnTfvO+vlICTZwKC+jVVRlrYaWk0oTIg1gs=; b=Q90sg17jLDsqsfy/uZ/EjCAJEUTOAhzMjbAYgWKxox0rhyd9eqqElGYX8nhQ1mvLG4u87yLn0W6irRizTuenmIFvtHYgHm40wD+gozlGgcWqmbYqBQ8Dc9s3bRhsJL/LDfa6KPYUJV4yRTJq+FRgCv60n99p5CiQcMOUWXjGsXvCT7eDX9aMPceTHWJzLJ3K4wE9L2dZMQYnt4o83kLrRoDjR06wZ8PwZYXvBBI6SH9koeRcHwtl3cWuAYK89GguAj4hbbaJBMApdKETzTqZ4YXj7WqAjQH8ui+hJwNJ6B3RQWYdXr9D3R94HyhfvxcMyR3MLoRJ6ciA/N5oR0n0rw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eglwN3vasnTfvO+vlICTZwKC+jVVRlrYaWk0oTIg1gs=; b=LByCEWLyHSFrwCl4C/14zYmbenYkG6EWWwWQgCI1wXPGgdonxc+IHlaHxyQxiq7rTKoSbfbXr9WUFbhI1XTIb8wG6RtW4ThNvFmhxImP+QN6aE2McxMWbQjMxFFiN06jL2QvOOawMFk9rKkoifvGxsOomVs0j7D0PjSCNDY+NZo=
Received: from DM5PR11MB1818.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.92.9) by DM5PR11MB1980.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.88.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.22; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:09:39 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB1818.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d136:2a22:28ef:2075]) by DM5PR11MB1818.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d136:2a22:28ef:2075%12]) with mapi id 15.20.2729.032; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:09:39 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
CC: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: What 's the process?
Thread-Topic: What 's the process?
Thread-Index: AdXmRp2+j8roA37CTn+ijAU1LR1JcgAZNNvAACkTwYA=
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:09:39 +0000
Message-ID: <735EF3B3-E3CD-4C44-B0F4-1439D490B62B@cisco.com>
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB0290463E@dggeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D001F5397DFF015BE22AAE110@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348D001F5397DFF015BE22AAE110@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ddukes@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.135]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 42206c36-d7ad-4fda-8889-08d7b566e31f
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1980:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB1980E79CAE7516DB4B556BA0C8100@DM5PR11MB1980.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-forefront-prvs: 0318501FAE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(136003)(346002)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(8936002)(6506007)(53546011)(6512007)(5660300002)(966005)(54906003)(26005)(81156014)(478600001)(8676002)(66574012)(316002)(6916009)(81166006)(86362001)(36756003)(66476007)(66556008)(66446008)(64756008)(76116006)(2906002)(91956017)(186003)(4326008)(2616005)(71200400001)(66946007)(6486002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1980; H:DM5PR11MB1818.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: rRIQsgxjdJzgqlS3IkKzkoZQQl7IiHHVWW0wqHgg2tH/+Z8UPBMsnWRtqj2bV9BV2Xhs2hP6E1mvHE7YUmo4FfKJsTOsHoDf5LPXc8ZE0aRZ4371Mgi2Vv5o9p9W3enUduz49qYBJB+wg8f4lloJzA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735EF3B3E3CD4C44B0F41439D490B62Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 42206c36-d7ad-4fda-8889-08d7b566e31f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2020 18:09:39.7211 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: PQfc9g1iYwKRC4NZYRdIj1/Rn8NKkWlCrKJLzeKo8/1+WUvD0YWiSMTA2nN9PN7TlSyqY8YHom5ZCa398QhL2w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1980
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PBv-WRYTrQGqiCtk3oZi8_zpyHI>
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, 19 Feb 2020 18:10:14 -0000

Thanks Ron, so CRH is now purely an RH0 replacement in your view, and the use-case is exactly the same as RH0.
However:
 - your RH0 replacement has only one documented use-case and that is SRm6.
 - your RH0 replacement defines traffic engineering semantics in the CRH-FIB, that are unrelated to RH0 and only useful to SRm6.

It is pretty obvious to me (and I think anyone else watching) that you are attempting to jump the queue here Ron.
You are attempting to get 6man to stamp CRH for use by SRm6 without doing the work that you agreed to; documenting the benefits of SRm6 vs existing SR/MPLS and SRv6 solutions https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Su-5NFpETVGt5beWObmnCP4LoYs.

I commend you on the attempt, but I think it is a bit too obvious to work ;)

Darren


On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote:

Hello Cheng, Robin and Darren,

The CRH draft depends only upon the documents that it references as normative. It does not depend on any other documents.
Do you see anything in the text that suggests otherwise?

The use-case is exactly the same as RH0. The application needs a traffic steering mechanism. However, there are two new constraints. These are:

- The security vulnerabilities that caused RH0 to be deprecated must be addressed
- The Routing header must be deployable, even when the number of segments is large

In the future, other document may depend on CRH. However, CRH does not depend upon them.

                                                                                                Ron


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:42 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Subject: What 's the process?

Hi Ron,

I see the related references to segment routing documents are deleted, including https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjrD0I-8D$

May I ask a question? What is the relation between this document and the SRm6 document? Independent?  If not, what is the process of adopting these two documents?

BTW, in which condition that we can say a solution is a stand-alone piece of work?

Thanks,
Cheng



-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 8:56 AM
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

Folks,

Over the last several weeks, customers who have no interest in Segment Routing have expressed interest in the CRH. So, we have updated the CRH draft, removing all references to Segment Routing and letting it stand alone as an IPv6 Routing header.

While Segment Routing may one day be a user of the CRH, it will not be the only user.

Please review this document as a stand-alone piece of work.

                                                                         Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> <internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:46 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>; Ning So <ning.so@ril.com<mailto:ning.so@ril.com>>; Andrew Alston <andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.com>>; Ning So <Ning.So@ril.com<mailto:Ning.So@ril.com>>; Tomonobu Niwa <to-niwa@kddi.com<mailto:to-niwa@kddi.com>>; Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>; Yuji Kamite <y.kamite@ntt.com<mailto:y.kamite@ntt.com>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF repository.

Name: draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Revision: 11
Title: The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH)
Document date: 2020-02-16
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 16
URL                      https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjrnJ8ZXY$
Status:                https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjuJwFxBl$
Htmlized:           https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjrnJ8ZXY$
Htmlized:           https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjsOwC5Gy$
Diff:
Abstract:
  This document defines two new Routing header types.  Collectively,
  they are called the Compressed Routing Headers (CRH).  Individually,
  they are called CRH-16 and CRH-32.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

The IETF Secretariat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjrjvNnZo$
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SZBw1bJrNzc15rJ32cZACDoLU6rdesCKqqb7L_Kk7fAG01S3NeZHhGXcjrjvNnZo$
--------------------------------------------------------------------