Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

["Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew.  You say...

That 6man – does refer to this working group right?  Or am I confused.

I think you are confused, but that’s OK, it’s easy to explain.
SPRING defined segment routing, the terminology, usecases, problem statement, and protocol extensions.
6man defined the routing header.
See section 1 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-00 where this context was given when 6man adopted the document.


RPL appears similar, see section 1.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-00


I hope this helps.

  Darren

________________________________
From: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:44 AM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes); Bob Hinden; IPv6 List
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

Darren…

Can you please explain the double standard here – where the additional development on segment routing was done in other working groups (IDR/LSR/SPRING etc) – but – last I checked –

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26

That 6man – does refer to this working group right?  Or am I confused.

Now – let me be very clear before someone claims we’re trying to replace the SRH – which is not the case – I am merely contrasting your arguments to another case where a routing header was developed – and the rest of the work – was done elsewhere as needed, and which you had nom issue with.

So – to be frank – from my perspective  and speaking only for myself – I see this as yet another red herring popped out of thin air.

Thanks

Andrew

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 17:00
To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

Hi Bob and Ole.

I’m not supporting the draft for adoption by 6man. I know you’re shocked ;).

I have one main concern with 6man adoption that I think many can agree with.

This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to drive.

Others have said “this is not 6man’s concern” and I agree because 6man is an ipv6 maintenance WG, not the segment mapping working group.  I believe the authors should find a WG with that concern to drive this work. I know starting work without requirements is fun and exciting, but you will likely end up at the wrong destination.

Brian had one suggestion on this topic.

In the past I’ve suggested SPRING, or if the authors desire, a BOF to build consensus and gather requirements for its parent SRm6 work or some variant of it.

I hope the authors, WG, chairs and AD consider these points during this adoption call.

Thanks
  Darren


________________________________
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14 PM
To: IPv6 List
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

This message starts a two-week 6MAN call on adopting:

 Title:          The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
 Authors:        R. Bonica, Y. Kamite, T. Niwa, A. Alston, L. Jalil
 File Name:      draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-21
 Document date:  2020-05-14

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr

as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.

Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change going forward.

This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.

The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been active in resolving issues raised on the list.

Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us an indication of the energy level in the working group
to work on this.

Regards,
Bob and Ole