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

"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26 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 171753A0CDF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=DW8vd6Bw; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=kgT1Ya2h
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 JjPn7GehpzMi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB89E3A0CD8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=24653; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589686003; x=1590895603; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Ra7M9GzNv5wTYuDO/tSUwt3dl4EMza+I2ZrP/Ci3yeA=; b=DW8vd6Bw8Ig7udfzUhHB/Lep8m2UK9hkU/6evKoBDUfT6cHu1rH5cYKl e9t1YZ7I691oJw5bG8NrrqFePA9HrVpgSqfDMCq3Ep2sHOyPPYE9iUQvF 3FaiZsCToPQszVMaC4j0/nSHziua+OELomqH4RxKNiTmZa+y+ftSbNIyS 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A7/zaKBagdiFcbZzLUYPfDPv/LSx94ef9IxIV55?= =?us-ascii?q?w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el21QSTD4Ha8u9Fh/bbt63rXmlG6pGE4zgOc51JAh?= =?us-ascii?q?kCj8he3wktG9WMBkCzKvn2Jzc7E8JPWB4AnTm7PEFZFdy4awjUpXu/vjoTAw?= =?us-ascii?q?j+ORZ4Iun+HYuUhMOyhKi+/pTJaFBOgzywKbp5MBSxq1DXsc8b5OkqKqs4xh?= =?us-ascii?q?bT5HVSfOEDzmJzLlXVlBH5tco=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CdBQDJrsBe/5hdJa1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGCB4ElL1EHb1gvLAqEGoNGA41DiXuOQIJSA1QLAQEBDAEBIwo?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBhEQCF4IBJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYVWDIVxAQEBAQMSCwYdAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?pAwsBDwIBCBEDAQEBKAMCAgIfERQJCAIEDgUigwQBgX5NAy4BDqNTAoE5iGF?= =?us-ascii?q?2gTKDAQEBBYE2AoERgwMNC4IOAwaBOIJjiV8agUE/gTgcgk0+gh5JAQECAYF?= =?us-ascii?q?hCAEPCQ0Jgl4zgi2RIj2GIiWKU49RSgqCUIgmi0uEVh2CXYhwkgmaLoJKjVe?= =?us-ascii?q?DRwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSKBVnAVGiEqAYI+PhIYDZBADBeDT4UUhUJ0AjUCBgE?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQEDCXyNUAGBDwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,401,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="479905034"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 May 2020 03:26:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04H3Qg6f007928 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sat, 16 May 2020 22:26:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sat, 16 May 2020 22:26:41 -0500
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 16 May 2020 23:26:41 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ebOv8b4rWLe52dphdaQwkRVklplkGddb+Ps3xB/LXD3SVl9L9GhCnI8wZ5fj2HMQhrLdlbxpofhs3Pn9sCCN/6zP7kIoltCrLTzuNYvBwdiNJWqBES2fNBCdVZ1wG0k6j/iKkT/o6zLfVI2Rb93jXDmKOUEp0Y51A5W314A7diGhQBV8ae4aRMvNs8ufAx9CNRsf7B/B1qwTJe6sgrnwYHF8C3Q72gFMyMrQz8PRRE+qX2iPHJICm2g+Ebr6qhiai9jpXsbTsKnTc3hbW0H1bwJRO8VphrFuwGrS3bKAAU4qvW1+cbeTMRna20jzEhai3lbdAgfS+tgATnVXDW8KHQ==
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=Ra7M9GzNv5wTYuDO/tSUwt3dl4EMza+I2ZrP/Ci3yeA=; b=AAqR8Po2COCUUhvz+jXbgK45C9oxDpX36kkN3w2cZ42MZ8AOcGmy6driaC+u7lVHCs3ZuHE5lSVrpk+pjQG1GMaQUs09fD7wX9HrGoEyXrcs6/FMyg5smC1eEMGumrJje0kbjAQ83O5avUWSBWu8mKpRMA4A+v0UX7TyzwCyHlnxN/PUkqPWw6uQRXLARM2TYn4o/1XEDrCKTe7rXbNReWHhvDtxDnNYg7LIMue7EwBEuviCuvi153GQOgFiBmISU59b6B2E7oDPBuFlIPRntSJKmDglZTJ7AkzAYIPlPSlG1DO9auLryFi3ySkBl21PKe1zHt/7V6mgZKMaSqV5Ww==
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=Ra7M9GzNv5wTYuDO/tSUwt3dl4EMza+I2ZrP/Ci3yeA=; b=kgT1Ya2htlTaF8aoHd3fQ6RTD2YSuA4CxT7AdyPZmGl3vUXgBQzc9Qc1piJWN1Q5/SNJvtHxxX4WYgiAxTk0bSvnB7kZxPdvxr6eFDl7vHdHn3UcXtu3mY33Yl+TCTBoFQFe2cg7/QAuF4/GL94T+QAS8uDxDzmubXbdYqgQC5Y=
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:78::38) by BN6PR11MB1410.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:4a::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3000.20; Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26:39 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c8dc:287c:17c2:28a7]) by BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c8dc:287c:17c2:28a7%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3000.022; Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26:38 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Topic: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Index: AQHWKwY4fpz+MrGRFkKhGm0j4mXCqKiqqXZtgAAheQCAANT2gA==
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26:38 +0000
Message-ID: <A7F4BF11-A99A-457E-8F5B-0A2342B80C71@cisco.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <BN6PR11MB408104884A42DC2A393D0C09C8BA0@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <89EA4005-4972-4284-9ADA-35FAA1F2A759@liquidtelecom.com>
In-Reply-To: <89EA4005-4972-4284-9ADA-35FAA1F2A759@liquidtelecom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
authentication-results: liquidtelecom.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;liquidtelecom.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [198.84.207.201]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b8dc8c2e-872e-47e7-f5c5-08d7fa121c56
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB1410:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB14103734AAA8845DA2FBD366C8BB0@BN6PR11MB1410.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 040655413E
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(71200400001)(4326008)(53546011)(8936002)(6506007)(166002)(316002)(6512007)(2906002)(36756003)(186003)(33656002)(91956017)(5660300002)(66946007)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(478600001)(6916009)(76116006)(6486002)(26005)(2616005)(8676002)(86362001)(54906003)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A7F4BF11A99A457E8F5B0A2342B80C71ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b8dc8c2e-872e-47e7-f5c5-08d7fa121c56
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 May 2020 03:26:38.5962 (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: hkmtIWz8aXI95nXb3L+zztqAsF+NiOCztHCGHvSzpjWATG9tabWyOIY9+EcV/hJv6dXv6YqarbzlvcyjORyd7w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB1410
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PtIMDur3wjThTkc-Smd71N1CoQk>
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: Sun, 17 May 2020 03:26:46 -0000

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 <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
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 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 17:00
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>
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 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>
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