Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it> Thu, 27 February 2020 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it>
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 03A443A0DC7; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:43:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=uniroma2.it header.b=oXnmxzJX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uniroma2.it header.b=btAPX3rm
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 yCBEamXk8VYz; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.uniroma2.it (smtp.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 910C03A0DE7; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:43:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it [160.80.5.46]) by smtp-2015.uniroma2.it (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id 01R1goim016235; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:42:55 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (93-36-196-249.ip61.fastwebnet.it [93.36.196.249]) by smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 057A4121E31; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:42:46 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=ed201904; t=1582767766; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0jPKl3u3RBj+g1CQvfmfMlrlj9uMSKuTf0WWAqrHiwc=; b=oXnmxzJXuQ3Rr8W5BS4eqjIpow5nHVzF3gzguw8Efib6FoHkgjo2ntpHRQCYfXvz+vfvvK jnI9A5YRjAay8wAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=rsa201904; t=1582767766; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0jPKl3u3RBj+g1CQvfmfMlrlj9uMSKuTf0WWAqrHiwc=; b=btAPX3rmzWn9n8nkdlHCTEIv+DqpyKn5RPopbTlzCmwgdWAAw9Tsmrdk+fFW1i3mDWu7N2 rpsbkhGIGGnCYQhKp4E8AvdO/2COY9VJS7sA5+OjDJkoFnaOeGXoLoeG1xfXbcsO7HBZH2 MaME6EfF0Gk9lu46N6gFR9W5+pgCsWPlQ+TBNqigG3Jvy3sysCWQvmyUUVATMpqIwhNeh5 VHWH8fxUQMZK9xoZW+jHn/l5J6E5Kzx+gw2TXkzdp1tk2cnrfhJj6uC+c5bcSgPo6hgFVW 4XN4iLizDTyrIJVQSe+KkZo2hwFpNCt2DTb/b3YS9idZNk1sEvIAv/faWPksPg==
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, John Leddy <john@leddy.net>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <F88E3F76-DD4B-4807-A458-85FABFF20D96@gmail.com> <5D218BFB-0D6F-4F7D-858F-B571A67DC47F@leddy.net> <CAHw9_iJ_ipEvU0NUx44XbK0_DrLe_GRw6G=m+chK4wZcRP8BMg@mail.gmail.com> <ACA082A4-BC78-4C63-9F91-5C9A44F47642@cisco.com> <b693c244-95f9-473e-de21-166393280d18@gmail.com>
From: Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it>
Message-ID: <8a20c0e2-e651-0294-03c2-4b89c44549cc@uniroma2.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:42:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b693c244-95f9-473e-de21-166393280d18@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: it-IT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.0 at smtp-2015
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UKpg0rCj5mFo6RUt5q7cw9VspYw>
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 01:43:07 -0000

Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto:
> Eric,
> 
> On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> Writing this without any hat,
>>
>> Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200.
> 
> The draft uses an undefined term ("pop") but it does *explicitly* state in a section called "Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH":
> 
>>> S14.4.      Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension header chain
> 
> If the word "penultimate" means what it means in every dictionary, this is in-flight removal of a header, and that is explicitly against RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram.

Brian,

"penultimate segment" means what it means in every dictionary, but this 
is not in-fligth removal of a header.

When the packet has reached the "penultimate segment", it has reached a 
node "identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as 
stated in RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram

Please note that at the very end of section 3 the "Destination address" 
is defined as "address of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly 
not the ultimate recipient, if a Routing header is present)"

Stefano

> 
> It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>> Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
>>
>> Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
>>
>> -éric
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
>>
>> ...%<...%<....
>>      
>>      It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
>>      -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
>>      - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
>>      category...
>>      
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


-- 
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Professore Associato
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY

http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/

E-mail  : stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Cell.   : +39 320 4307310
Office  : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************