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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 27 May 2020 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 42E423A0CA0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 e8LZMVoy8xtx for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::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 2708C3A0CA7 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id g9so21532301edw.10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EdraP/cROv1nD9KdFVUXNWU8NPfYTnO2hI6a2IknqgI=; b=R9ubeur0XAxfHy9cl3nu9SjR2acXnZe+RQLbMmDlj6rpTkc690qkP+Npn8C8b5Og+v 1Yu/L/aMYeM3TuUr37OO7w9NB5wQNLZcNMzH1lg9k7HDa8HPosrLzZeTs8Bdd7tIM56S hjDAhRVFjMg+5cJoBOPpd0T3+fslbk4gorTcPDPd1gObMPlnDKQsej3bJNR4ZUdpwzt7 eVXYu1w1NcSgUhwg/bpvVahIiGoZ2XG4ZRwAMxEp/r4mGIfP9Wb7A9qbzOW2cN2KMNbi w77lNdPjwiWDpPyhUkLXAIHnVLlHcT6S0WeWAsv8+qvAkvh56hN9WS+Ai/RpI92NMPEf S+zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EdraP/cROv1nD9KdFVUXNWU8NPfYTnO2hI6a2IknqgI=; b=U/WBg/Ww5pg3KKDzIINuhcAFY2Dkiynac+5qQcrRodFo+EUc+2QipnkLGaTvfnF6Qq BiHFkLQjfR81f9J07DTJnqbgua3SxihG0MLkKho/IYxJxm/iaT+scb0XzjR2swBGNpI7 K824JKCh3MkzdMacRWFNoIwECwHsrUGvENT7Us06QEjSGYnNtA4HZyKNZR2xVegzc9a/ 8i5epINMmN4s6bEHoZpTOHMXsAXQMXaxOHXBCK+d2QkSNaPPUJbsotKZrMsm1oa0EPaR yscroFqrcth9mC7qXyR37Hi69EifBa+w6+ST04yWRZ78sik4/9ailt8WbnqSFMJ5ygyY 3E1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xMSEYrHozB2VrW6l0Cy/6a8IZedYoQGIthmOMydzAOaLV7cyb EtaKUv9tPocljisyAFC+MEJhGPOsApMqBHvipRhX/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbkxKa/ApLsSXOqp+kid4buLZRHmVRN3m8oIFyAAbXL9FHkolJDbvMWwEd50bBpLmX/jRfSkpQyUg5fDGf3v8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:129a:: with SMTP id w26mr180906edv.41.1590616225517; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com>
In-Reply-To: <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 23:50:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000018a73105a6a83333"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_Vh6KKgtgFIeJon3bUdeOJZF9Qs>
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 21:50:30 -0000

Andrew,

I don't think this is about killing innovation. After all no one is saying
you can not use it in your network.

WG acceptance calls are evaluated in terms of WG rough consensu if
significant number of members of WG find a proposal useful and if they are
willing to work on it.

It seems clear that other then one vendor and very few individuals majority
of the WG members do not support the adoption.

I am not against CRH. But what I am against is that CRH/SRm6 authors
already bounced back via SPRING doors so they have chosen to try to enter
via 6man window. That is not proper style for any proposal.

Regards,
R.










On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> What I find so bizarre is –
>
>
>
> You have an multiple operators – who have clearly said – we want this – we
> see advantage of this.  Yet still the obstructionism and denialism
> continues.  The “not invented here” syndrome seems to run deep – and email
> after email is patently ignored from the very people who have to buy the
> hardware.  Reference is made to Montreal – yet the emails that stated the
> use cases after it went by with no response.  No technical objections ever
> show up – other than – we don’t want this and you haven’t given us this
> mythical architecture document – which was yet another non-technical
> response that seems so clearly designed to stall any innovation that
> doesn’t come from one source.
>
>
>
> All I see from the operator perspective here is obstructionism and
> stalling in a desperate attempt to block anything that could be a threat to
> what was dreamed up by someone else.  It is almost as if there is fear that
> the market may choose something other than what was designed – and that
> fear is driving this stance of throw everything we hav against the wall and
> hope that something sticks – because the technical arguments have failed
> time and again.
>
>
>
> This pitbull approach certainly doesn’t garner any respect for me, does
> not help to promote srv6 which seems to be what you want and in fact
> convinces me more every day that CRH is the right move – where I can built
> on top of it without the obstructionism of a vendor that seems to have zero
> interest in what mysef and other operators are clearly stating over and
> over again.
>
>
>
> Yet again – I support crh – I’ve deployed CRH – CRH works for us – and we
> still continue to support it.  And irrespective of if it is adopted – the
> development of it will continue – and it will exist – the only question is
> – do we end up with something that the market wants outside of the auspices
> of the IETF – or do we end up with something that is properly standardized,
> because this level of obstructionism will not prevent the development.
>
>
>
> Can we actually get back to proper technical reasoning?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 23:07
> *To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>om>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
> BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>om>, Sander Steffann <
> sander@steffann.nl>
> *Cc: *6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re:
> [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint
> option?
>
>
>
> Zafar,
>
>
>
> Why all the passion about stopping the CRH? Does it break any existing
> standard? Does it consume any scarce resource?
>
>
>
> You might argue that there is a scarcity of Routing header type numbers.
> But that would be a very short argument. You might argue that WG resources
> are scarce, and that it would take too much time to review this fourteen
> page document. But that argument might take more time than the document
> review.
>
>
>
> In your email, below, you mention “the hardware and software investment
> from vendors”. Is that the scarce resource?
>
>
>
> Vendors are not obliged to implement every draft that is adopted as a WG
> item. Generally, the marketplace drives product roadmaps.
>
>
>
> If the only resource we are protecting is vendor investment, the
> long-standing practice of due diligence should be tempered by operator
> demand. The IETF should not pretend to understand operator requirements
> better than the operators themselves.
>
>
>
> Why not let the marketplace decide whether it needs a CRH?
>
>
>
>
>                                                          Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:19 PM
> *To:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>om>;
> Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> *Cc:* Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>om>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>;
> Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>; spring@ietf.org;
> Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>
> *Subject:* Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re:
> [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint
> option?
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W3gO-dni2tB4nG9e13QsJnjFgG8/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XHiztGcX_48I-aQukzfQTbbmTVdtDpjH9FqoL2NsOT8vOTnK4f6flXwVl0PT0CIY$>
>
> [2]
> https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-105-spring?useMonospaceFont=true
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-105-spring?useMonospaceFont=true__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XHiztGcX_48I-aQukzfQTbbmTVdtDpjH9FqoL2NsOT8vOTnK4f6flXwVl8aoFdbw$>
>
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XHiztGcX_48I-aQukzfQTbbmTVdtDpjH9FqoL2NsOT8vOTnK4f6flXwVlypBDeuG$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>