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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 03:14 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 4F61E3A0E0E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:57 -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=ham 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 rOE-qHOrLNAf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:56 -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 128673A0E07 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id 5so4383925pjd.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:56 -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=BKLvHhMJQeFaz9ma/GQp4wZUEWmth+FtXn6a6DVouEg=; b=cB7WfLjf0xARsK4BkavQbUTeSNG3rP68wxSt4eA+HnAD3iGI/fq1jqzf9YPpksycXg DfCxbzC2tk2vRFoJO4pHhdpuOnFeEDUGHvLAH1HKHsfg4aGSMSZvQ1D4CpYQmr6uF04N CZ6K20GhsVgvxBXjq8Zqb89gALQx0WM0xx3BRsPbdQkZlHa1g5s9Lw1E/MliTKNVTXk9 vIQIsNp0TeMopaoHLBXMXw+he/PFC2rtmLn5CBUrct40QaAsLzck8Z4NLyH6pZkCxhVN dZc6w4WMaFXEJveh9L9BCL2jHMEls0Ax8mbUo+m9SdMv7qkQtsbPGXSce6KvRjlIGvbS FMsA==
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=BKLvHhMJQeFaz9ma/GQp4wZUEWmth+FtXn6a6DVouEg=; b=JclQVxKFAiaz5guTNqaktcbEVt9SPkJS7tPireH3cUJrRZL4d+nbyukt/7xqIiADWg AynwobfFOWusFKWRrO2ZoqBOSeTZGjbAl5nnnl7qOVJdxGxZ8R5gAiurAcfPJ4Tg0jXG Hzf5/pGkjEVE8lTt60kc1CfRxq32a33jOJPHHFZAVUsfMMonvNZJZbCT8goBC6PU/U6t yk7QyWEFFzA2gsSSFk/vpohCmscmbGfwgxZJLXq5OCTW/Vy5QJQplWBQJam4XKLOf/tj /mXV9tSE+F7hCPbhk7orpAUQXI6inS0HbFcskRGilaodNXV+81mU0FwLvbpyjfVqpy6e 2MdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gh+2OWaiSXiaszQFIRy4NmJWV8BHiLrT4cwIOAaSLZJc52UZL L+fSFjMFAcF/E0KRNRSQzjI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMqKZTZApNRk//xudMNKvFfO+7bsM0YZsWk/Gxnl9YlXht5nZInTTcYSLy8ghkW1YlJ7e39Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f497:: with SMTP id bx23mr1946499pjb.139.1590117295681; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f21sm5575532pfn.71.2020.05.21.20.14.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2020 20:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB457033A9113B88BBD95CF39BC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0009E75A-3FA1-4C19-8BDE-E0D0EDD530DF@juniper.net> <MW3PR11MB4570DB10F84395039DC1687FC1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <879c8485-0b6a-2444-7cb3-3ae42a71af2c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:14:50 +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: <MW3PR11MB4570DB10F84395039DC1687FC1B40@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/SEXXoPakfB6pA9uObIpzY4l9eRw>
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 03:14:58 -0000

On 22-May-20 14:52, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
...
> */So why the rush and the shortcuts – why not the proper documentation before asking for WG adoption?/*

Because it's only WG adoption. There is no requirement for supporting documentation at this stage in the IETF process.

It's not long ago that I recall an AD saying to a WG that formal requirements and use case documents are usually a waste of time anyway. Maybe the IESG has changed its mind about that recently? But in any case, it's a Routing Area decision whether CRH is a good idea; 6MAN is not the place for that part of the discussion.

   Brian