Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 20:55 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 C5476120099 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 H-T0sHuAIkMq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 BA1CB120020 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id t1so3755955pgc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:30 -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=AbUZVR1Izrp94HkXMvZWQ2kpueycwD/yU76z6+GG3TU=; b=Q0ox616h0aTn2Je5TBgiYN7xys+8K2uNu3AUVBddenFGbL4N1wgrwDKX4spaL8TYP7 vo5HM+OizdUjnm8I5m/aJ2KPzD4F8p6Qn5h/PTP13Y9A/5kKF4mAig2b+/mqyHbgaEM5 TRmp7dZhdRy3xit0wwKW61SiLqlkDF2bHi46oJogiRKzzMn5v38m1rw+RXMBCJKOl6sD rXfEG5qgiSw/OzFE7qwkqF7Xp0FWSy2GU3JBQHN6meKBFgYLXysGIf+f6KtNOE5EsfV3 OrWNZe7OEnNjSZQq9siaVkWw6az9T+XUC8nmACA9YrKjJlRrfxKB3a+GqJaJ+cdes7KS Wemw==
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=AbUZVR1Izrp94HkXMvZWQ2kpueycwD/yU76z6+GG3TU=; b=gxjYTxyt7+L/A7a/6ukqbnhaEvLLVlFCG3wv9BtBnJ+6cegD39RLfgGbzJyc6pOlFE rb65F7E5NgH2wLBx8ClSWVb0ogtCtRlx6mnWtLMyoJbz7nHi9k4PiQ7IrACG30KUfuBS IkaETqSwU0NCHI228alyxfI7Q/D/7HO4KfUmqzxjC8HqNkvtWF8YcirqiG9+m+KG4DWP JP5/kSvViYeEErGkNPPlqIFZZSS3zxUqJKWAM6sBJR1pGRi1+jXbY7qAYaAG+f6d1nK6 ywbZLKp6IzU4wtOoR7GNDjeJfgnLXiP7HZBumDp9+ImpwOAqRBBBawpt9P196J30itSg BoOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKwNPTaNpynba2dyIfyBXr173YdDYY6bgmL+SbBrkcgojRO3d8 BTg+sLtddtv66Wf/H5mSpOjut6YC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz70A5ZiYmxWBfjxoAeBA0mllYY59nKC5SDBgG8AF+WjAdgq9tL7+44roCXhGozvmZo7K+7LQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:a511:: with SMTP id v17mr79386068pfm.129.1558644929818; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (229.129.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.129.229]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p6sm317250pfn.151.2019.05.23.13.55.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 May 2019 13:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <588C586F-C303-418E-8D26-477C4B37CF92@gmail.com> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB8AB6E2@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <329C76F8-7D1B-4D26-8F38-B8894505487F@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <196ada08-4c0e-de11-ebb9-2ca70ab6f42d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 08:55:26 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <329C76F8-7D1B-4D26-8F38-B8894505487F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YAuGjIsGBRH9KPQ3wx8VCOlgsnU>
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, 23 May 2019 20:55:33 -0000

On 24-May-19 00:32, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Jingrong,
> 
>> On May 23, 2019, at 4:47 AM, Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Support WGLC.
>>
>> Some minor/editorial nits:
>> (1) Below text in section 2 is irrelevant and incorrect, because there is no 'mutable' or 'mutability' word in RFC8200.
> 
> The w.g. chairs concluded that the consensus of the 6man w.g. was that the the mutability of the SRH fields be specified.  See:
> 
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jBpmjGZd77ZRHKOKUF6Hsbcc0is
> 
> That makes it both correct and relevant.   

To be even more clear, RFC8200 does not use the word mutable, but it
does deal with the mutability of options:
"The third-highest-order bit of the Option Type specifies whether or
not the Option Data of that option can change en route to the
packet's final destination." And it's clear in RFC8200 that at least
the "Segments Left" field of a routing header is mutable. So the
concept of mutability is covered, even if the word is not used.
Of course RFC4302 makes this even clearer.

Regards
   Brian


> 
> Regards,
> Bob
> 
> 
>>
>>   In the SRH, the Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, and Routing Type fields are
>>   defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200] as not mutable.  The Segments
>>   Left field is defined as mutable in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200].
>>
>>   Some of the other fields of the SRH change en route (i.e. they are
>>   mutable).  The SRH is processed as defined in Section 4.3 of this
>>   document, and uniquely per SID type.  The mutability of the remaining
>>   fields in the SRH (Flags, Tag, Segment List, Optional TLVs) are
>>   defined in that section, in the context of segment processing.
>>
>> (2)the "or No Next Header" in the title of section 4.3.1.2 is irrelevant.
>> 4.3.1.2.  Upper-layer Header or No Next Header
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jingrong
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:40 PM
>> To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
>> Subject: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt> 
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
>>
>>       Title           : IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)
>>       Authors         : Clarence Filsfils
>>                         Darren Dukes
>>                         Stefano Previdi
>>                         John Leddy
>>                         Satoru Matsushima
>>                         Daniel Voyer
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt
>> 	Pages           : 32
>> 	Date            : 2019-05-21
>>
>>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
>>
>> as a Proposed Standard.  
>>
>> This document was in an extended last call that started in March of 2018.   An issue tracker was set up, and eight new versions of the draft were produced and discussed on the list and at face to face 6man sessions.   All of the issues in the tracker have been closed.  The chairs believe it is ready to advance, but given the number of changes and the time that elapsed, a new w.g. last call is warranted.  Please review the new document.
>>
>> Our thanks to the authors/editors and the working group for the work on this document.
>>
>> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author.  This last call will end on 5 June 2019.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob & Ole
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> .
>