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

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 01 June 2020 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B843A1671 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyzsLbPmUgah for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52EA43A1669 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y1so9155908qtv.12 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pJvjSrA787Wc117XdEoR0h/n01HMLmQEAkXInN7mhGs=; b=gh2VdDz3tATAt69GASFjIF70QKkQVc1W/QQTaOla1gBYcGMd20NE6tUvQ2E8Ho6ryg vR714FI2mOwgYqhBFRL7ej9SL8VztTofepO3EnVuBqN+QEGp0Qj/cHsizWHJL4RHYtp+ j/t5J2ZxIZhzUdPwIVMxrWjNlkAVhwBzXYNx2U15+jDW1cO7ZmkKhvvrI+zB/17VKKpS kEplhS4AxfL1BLjMrfJMQv04RAGlE27aKGj/mSo+Ecj33p2SzLgEbXguGJ8zNsF3BNaI V0TOF7UvJnoadfcIXLUVS89HXRU4b6Vla3huqC0HlxUM+qUyEiu1f4vFOQOkvR1beocR +3Nw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pJvjSrA787Wc117XdEoR0h/n01HMLmQEAkXInN7mhGs=; b=QOvbeV0+y4DuEErB3E4I1YM081gdJ3o23k7RDLMKToGcihgc4McknNbJLPObXp3zAr XjjnVM2fiFDkG59iBjl7OIkj7aluqc8AUsQoy3Ee/T0dtY+YqwaMwbKyR2iT6GtYal+7 kVxoWOFh5e56t/uOQLiVb1D7rGuc9K1dKeZOoCV3aLDtDV2Dua2XEtnbvREqZlpaQwlc zKleWTAeiMz+a5xah7RivVCXMbi8kTE39H1YF0BduHnBb0QfVLOyArX+xGEjQK5qycH+ hROVpnJ7ECaFngyBWctf7s6VA9nuDlYEqXseMuBBz4f8zfGRwkL7Ykzc0SOgjllQqgCp vJgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530X42tG3VdvopFEbH8fA/63D5LxNwUKkEJVzsxlkz2BOyAtwObD hTBEb/RASNWY4Qr7K+jmOViWiCcFaWOUPq9L5LU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXpGmMR7iiXZ8Lt7hORGHoI3/h5PR4bSLGRE3etb+Bo2lJZjm1joG+dixJL6NOAZybs2RI45cPdTKzv11K+Qk=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:110:: with SMTP id e16mr23551975qtg.94.1591053004307; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:09:52 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 23:10:07 -0000

I know the call has ended and I'm coming late to the party but..
I support the adoption of this draft. It provides an ability to steer
traffic with very little overhead.
I do not agree with the argument that this draft can not be adopted
w/o some architecture documents.
This draft defines the format. How that format is used - outside of
6man scope. The SID information could come from many places - for
example from SDN controllers.
For example, we do not have any architecture documents for a
Destination Options Header, as far as I know ;)

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 8:14 AM Bob Hinden <> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry