What 's the process?

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Tue, 18 February 2020 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3171F12022D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:42:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QINMLTmIp7cm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (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 5CD7F1201C6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 16A912E98B39ED2F190E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml719-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:05 +0000
Received: from lhreml719-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml719-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:05 +0000
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml719-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:05 +0000
Received: from DGGEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:41:53 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: What 's the process?
Thread-Topic: What 's the process?
Thread-Index: AdXmRp2+j8roA37CTn+ijAU1LR1Jcg==
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:41:52 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB0290463E@dggeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_-xSrgNkYkm3SYFTeK07ePeF_Rs>
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:10 -0000

Hi Ron,

I see the related references to segment routing documents are deleted, including https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-00

May I ask a question? What is the relation between this document and the SRm6 document? Independent?  If not, what is the process of adopting these two documents? 

BTW, in which condition that we can say a solution is a stand-alone piece of work?


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 8:56 AM
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt


Over the last several weeks, customers who have no interest in Segment Routing have expressed interest in the CRH. So, we have updated the CRH draft, removing all references to Segment Routing and letting it stand alone as an IPv6 Routing header.

While Segment Routing may one day be a user of the CRH, it will not be the only user.

Please review this document as a stand-alone piece of work.


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> 
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:46 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Ning So <ning.so@ril.com>om>; Andrew Alston <andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.com>om>; Ning So <Ning.So@ril.com>om>; Tomonobu Niwa <to-niwa@kddi.com>om>; Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>om>; Yuji Kamite <y.kamite@ntt.com>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Revision:	11
Title:		The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH)
Document date:	2020-02-16
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		16
URL                      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11
Status:                https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/
Htmlized:           https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11
Htmlized:           https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
   This document defines two new Routing header types.  Collectively,
   they are called the Compressed Routing Headers (CRH).  Individually,
   they are called CRH-16 and CRH-32.


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6