Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@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 3B2843A0D2B; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, 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=VeqhGnz1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cQnqKUeT
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 Zfs0_VMIdnSm; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5D93A0A54; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20687; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590618727; x=1591828327; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oHrGtMTW9ICmfLp8+8gVUki1f8t98WF6jWJQwbqKyrA=; b=VeqhGnz1GLeYBlxvG0ypxRWprS/UusWol6sZXy9/D42kQho8ZloFSVe0 PDm4JEKG2A5CTuAHCvHj9iY082aZdWilbjtxF2gSyd6BKRY8ie8uh9nMX B4r3PDPFI7Wo6We/EaA91agyFzDi+b/h4BwNITateZRQdg8QcxOw3njHT c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AmFvQ5hEUEdDirndxPpQ4UJ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e401QObUoDS6vYCgO3T4OjsWm0FtJCGtn1KMJlBTA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMhshemQs8SNWEBkv2IL+PDWQ6Ec1OWUUj8yS9Nk5YS8n7blzW5Ha16G1aFh?= =?us-ascii?q?D2LwEgIOPzF8bbhNi20Obn/ZrVbk1IiTOxbKk0Ig+xqFDat9Idhs1pLaNixw?= =?us-ascii?q?=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CqBQD36c5e/5NdJa1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGCCoEhL1IHb1gvLAqEG4NGA40/iXqJYYRnglIDVQsBAQEMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQoKAgQBAYREAheBfwIkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVcMhXIBAQEBAwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEBEdAQEsCwEPAgEIEQECAQIkBAMCAgIfBgsUAwYIAgQBDQUUDoMEAYF+TQM?= =?us-ascii?q?uAQIMpG8CgTmIYXaBMoMBAQEFhUINC4IOAwaBOIJkiWAagUE/gREnHIIfLj6?= =?us-ascii?q?CHkkBAQKBOkkNCQKCXDOCLY5bMAOCWYYlml1KCoJUlAOEXR2eCIUHi0uMPZE?= =?us-ascii?q?sAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFqIimBLXAVOyoBgj5QGA2QQAwFEhWDOoUUhUJ0AjUCBgE?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQEDCXyJc4E1AYEPAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,442,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="485957227"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2020 22:32:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04RMW129031132 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2020 22:32:02 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 17:32:02 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:32:01 -0400
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 May 2020 17:32:01 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DjENs6q+tLpWzYAyDJDWOHHfRrKeMEZ5cmqaCh/T8FGW20La17Lx/kMBOwy8URAIQUkKIjzNvQeX+/cXZJjK/emQPAObY0uShbeL4ze5lz7Wi6uV9fo4Cr2vMVABuQpIx1O4nMlIG7gfgrjNpYHUhdjNjweNmvpFeGOEFgUL6mge2OwVz84MkuK6f0Bln+vPK6bUKeJA14IMybCvh4OJsFgtHf1LF35iSV8LSy8tzk76yhzPBn1PZGWlt3su3Gip3gtFsnohIiEJnF6yjz46BCJD41r/pu58QzLhahzWgPwhJNGYs9ZBMcYxQYeBRDFlu9pqd92vO5FX1U4JUz+oaQ==
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=oHrGtMTW9ICmfLp8+8gVUki1f8t98WF6jWJQwbqKyrA=; b=R445GxiEVy0Vz2+BNMA9bnZQIGUpGlYu2unL4ykfLYg1u8F1iXweK18aigGYb/ToyFvTLu3vLt5meRLT0FeLqhy/AzV9WVSeZ3xMkGYbNocHtQLyFtZwl6ghpwTCuEfR4UHJnCZhXzMB9+iAShXlZatFxxuyo+lml3/NWbzKtoE4WGBQcclQf7IjieqqamMFxSH5US9USZmDWhJMQYGuO8/GGaQPXzDGcHKXBwhICTXpqpns/4cAIrxmfBbq+Rwq9/w2v10KGhQqu1Zn6lSOO8WCLN+ODaRhywo6iFHgVxPHq91EXYXiHvFdAYZa+fCldvP71rQZ+Euzc9SNd+VQRQ==
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=oHrGtMTW9ICmfLp8+8gVUki1f8t98WF6jWJQwbqKyrA=; b=cQnqKUeTPKJo61mPUSxQ1I6zbCYjFMAxJXKaFOlFNZqBjz6j8EOFv0grtlqEG8z53SPGJ8wfVvdna+ifE/1QcP6HTZb0ZE0Y3fM2kdnjIkbxGKRwz3TXBNaTGktS+yzFNPk5G2wzIZvI6O3mGwi6M+XOunMS1Pk3y1/8mUSyu3g=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2aa::11) by DM6PR11MB2970.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:65::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.23; Wed, 27 May 2020 22:32:00 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fcce:4248:b4d5:470b]) by DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fcce:4248:b4d5:470b%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.018; Wed, 27 May 2020 22:32:00 +0000
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
CC: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Topic: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Index: AQHWNFukLM0xAvUWK0W7ISBmqA7+6qi8UGJQgABBSoD//+c5AIAABRgA///DgQA=
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 22:32:00 +0000
Message-ID: <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com>
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com> <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com> <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [47.185.212.154]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 60e8e49e-98de-4131-ccb1-08d8028dc596
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB2970:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB2970C4B76353F01A78F7CC98DEB10@DM6PR11MB2970.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: R267TySMhWD/YivTjvi2woh/IX3TP0k7booDHB0dZb2r9I4g9y+vzlCKQhqqCXCmnWeFu9aX9uxjV1qndOUxN4a77KkfgofQUD3QDnTBy/K1IWIWSPikI68a43LIHrxmAJGGgtMaA2GeMbJ/wtwpvDcmNxGhgk33mfrrtu1Jw0AN4izPeOlAGHvAi+UBjnzhA68cSKHIMTUuvOixLD0UKNSasyvpmBXpmSqiXTlkA7o9JDaSjgiQG9F5Zbka3Qp5NRnhwgk3uhjmhxYoqNikN7ViER98UMrf5S3QBA5xj7IpWaLflCdTaXmEgLJ6myPP1pKzBr49pvsVb3AM6BJ3hji8xjgreQLcwrmbk9afWD0ixAe/cZ4LbYnfgTBH58gwcATVI3ymAf8bGPi0F6w1cA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(376002)(366004)(54906003)(6512007)(26005)(966005)(2906002)(478600001)(36756003)(8936002)(66556008)(53546011)(33656002)(107886003)(66476007)(76116006)(66946007)(6506007)(86362001)(66446008)(64756008)(5660300002)(166002)(316002)(110136005)(4326008)(2616005)(83380400001)(71200400001)(9326002)(6486002)(8676002)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1E23900024BD4E8AA0D06876CE666137ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 60e8e49e-98de-4131-ccb1-08d8028dc596
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 22:32:00.0359 (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: smWm7MP2rPxGPVEdDvqf44LETJ95KawyZZgAtsikOrIUi28tZGWPEBd7lujIvHeT
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB2970
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SPOrWtJKwFgotEAG-PSUvdaRk3A>
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, 27 May 2020 22:32:09 -0000

Hi,

The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP changes will be required. E.g., it will require

  *   ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions)
  *   To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt)
  *   For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt)
  *   BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling, draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus)
  *   PCEP extension (TBA)
  *   OAM for debugging the mapping table
  *   Yang interface
  *   More to come

The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.

Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called “building blocks” fits together?

If author’s claim is that the home for the architecture work is not Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first defined architecture, use-case and requirements.
This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors.
Why they are looking for a short cut?

CRH is a “major” change and outside the scope of 6man charter.
It should follow the proper IETF review process.

Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing area”?

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:09 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>rg>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

On 28-May-20 09:50, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Andrew,

I don't think this is about killing innovation. After all no one is saying you can not use it in your network.

WG acceptance calls

Adoption is not acceptance. At least half the messages on this topic are written as if we were in the middle of a WG Last Call.

are evaluated in terms of WG rough consensu if significant number of members of WG find a proposal useful and if they are willing to work on it.

Indeed. Exactly. Not in the least about consensus that the proposal is ready for approval. Just that it is ready for discussion and, as you say, that there are people willing to work on it.

It seems clear that other then one vendor and very few individuals majority of the WG members do not support the adoption.

That's for the WG Chairs to evaluate, and I expect them to evaluate singing in chorus appropriately. Also, and this is not a grammatical quibble, we don't have "members". We have participants, and we don't count votes.

I am not against CRH. But what I am against is that CRH/SRm6 authors already bounced back via SPRING doors so they have chosen to try to enter via 6man window. That is not proper style for any proposal.

I agree that CRH is not in scope of the SPRING charter as it stands today ("the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6)"). But let me say again that we should hear the opinion of the routing ADs.

Regards
    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------