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

qinfengwei <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <qinfengwei@chinamobile.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 C39273A0CD4; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 9tosOfLkjM3G; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAA73A0BFE; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.7]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app10-12010 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eea5ed0e0d7744-2d13b; Fri, 29 May 2020 18:15:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eea5ed0e0d7744-2d13b
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[223.69.29.230]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee45ed0e0d590f-c47a2; Fri, 29 May 2020 18:15:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee45ed0e0d590f-c47a2
From: "qinfengwei" <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Zafar Ali \(zali\)'" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Henderickx, Wim \(Nokia - BE/Antwerp\)'" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "'Sander Steffann'" <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: <spring@ietf.org>, "'Mach Chen'" <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "'Ron Bonica'" <rbonica@juniper.net>, "'6man'" <6man@ietf.org>, "'Chengli \(Cheng Li\)'" <c.l@huawei.com>, "'Zafar Ali \(zali\)'" <zali@cisco.com>
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D:_=5Bspring=5D_Long-standing_pract?= =?UTF-8?Q?ice_of_due-diligence_is_expected?= =?UTF-8?Q?_-_Re:_CRH_is_not_needed_-_Re:_H?= =?UTF-8?Q?ow_CRH_support_SFC/Segment_Endpo?= =?UTF-8?Q?int_option=3F?=
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 18:15:52 +0800
Message-ID: <021801d635a2$2246aec0$66d40c40$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0219_01D635E5.3069EEC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHWNFukLM0xAvUWK0W7ISBmqA7+6qi+2bPQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_9gLw3LsKAlFKJTnwLwXvgrQOFc>
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: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:16:07 -0000

Hi,

         I really agree with Zafar. 

 

 

 

Thanks,

Fengwei Qin

 

发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Zafar Ali (zali)
发送时间: 2020年5月28日 03:19
收件人: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Sander Steffann
抄送: spring@ietf.org; Mach Chen; Ron Bonica; 6man; Chengli (Cheng Li); Zafar Ali (zali)
主题: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

 

WH> My position remains that RFC8663 is a valid alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of CRH.

 

The industry widely supports RFC8663. 

 

Instead of denying the evidence, could the CRH authors and proponents finally understand that people are not opposed to new ideas? 

 

People are reminding a long-standing practice of the IETF process. Before tackling a new piece of work, a working group must perform a due diligence on 

1.	whether this new work is redundant with respect to existing IETF protocols, 
2.	whether this new work would deliver genuine benefits and use-cases. 

 

It is factually and logically clear to the working-group that the currently submitted CRH documents.  

1.	fail to position CRH with respect to existing standard widely supported by the industry (e.g., RFC8663) 
2.	fail to isolate new benefit or use-case [1]

 

This positive collaborative feedback was already given in SPRING. 

The CRH authors may change this analysis. They need to document 1 and 2. 

 

Why did the CRH authors not leverage this guidance in SPRING WG?  

This was also the chair's guidance in Montreal [2] and Singapore [3] 

 

All the lengthy discussions and debates on the mailing list could be avoided if only the CRH authors would tackle 1 and 2. 

 

The CRH authors must tackle 1 and 2.  

 

*	This is the best way to justify a/the work from the IETF community and b/ the hardware and software investment from vendors. 
*	True benefits must be present to justify such a significant engineering investment (new data-pane, new control-plane). 

 

Thanks

 

Regards … Zafar 

 

[1]  <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W3gO-dni2tB4nG9e13QsJnjFgG8/> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W3gO-dni2tB4nG9e13QsJnjFgG8/

[2]  <https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-105-spring?useMonospaceFont=true> https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-105-spring?useMonospaceFont=true

[3]  <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/