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

Greg Mirsky <> Sat, 16 May 2020 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3D93A08E3 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 fcX_wImU3zQE for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96BD53A0894 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a21so5790898ljj.11 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:20 -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; bh=SJWCBARBSEO6csNTOb2udDFgacXsRTYR0eKBJXwXhR4=; b=S9mvcFOmqV6/NYVt0nvI65FsmOYhlbCD2Dtb/BfyD+rH7EfslZ/sZmH0gMMa5ip+EG 7IiSUk9a948RGKreBybukQ7ONbsVe3xNZQm/7FPRAzbrbLIEdJCTG+7cQlf4NbRuBtAr cRBpKnOpkGusc/KMbHBzOywm8wCHoJjPUE6rP287xvX6/8/PhyXIrFlAMCisedm0b/5o lXppPvD9cnOXLDg8BBtZT3NSNMi1AUjb+mceX8Ky2xuWPQB0drht7y8JEwbInTZIvQ7U HpFMb3W4bcvL5dBiPgueVkLH4IAi1Vq/DEro572oMfTLxizGlrhON3lSVKLdGiQKv1sn BMtg==
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; bh=SJWCBARBSEO6csNTOb2udDFgacXsRTYR0eKBJXwXhR4=; b=CFf2aYynUED+9Nqr87RQ+v0EB/gb432+FKyirUwqEHbYzX/bOzhwDebiT+g7+3gq7H ztM5i5+ACYxwtybPiCR4f+195sbClM69LQgO9hMSm23hQis2L/SOVfmu3gZEv45vXC6A mTiXzRtbE8+QDw8wno1FBlDWUCFWx3QFM0UEc13ngFBsByymKh+fASacXJ+mhM2f+8QH X7KRqoYjw94s3LH5QpuDFKB+87gmir1ylRFOFgMmvAVMqUZ1XRmwnt0AzY7ycIeSdYso JAON+sDdBYV7FiuFis8Fpb7O6fJDnDcBjpy19v/fdlufYKOq544issQ69FMtmCd6S55f NKBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VOtvx8K3hu0rAzBHeaRpWYhRYBmZ2424psT3jxmvKrT7gEkkf JYhUyo0H6g/Pua9P0M84y6eGTD6WBBhEZwBTzUc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrS566GepPXTn7CYkd17s1xmd6l6zd6+4ny2SlPr6PhRZGOiVku4tdTssQCHbUFWG9Ff6IEAjP8o5fQyeqd44=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1451:: with SMTP id 17mr5551933lju.30.1589660838674; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:27:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009a464605a5c9c170"
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 20:27:22 -0000

Sorry, I've meant "Zafar and I are working together".


On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Greg Mirsky <> wrote:

> Hi Darren,
> I'm confused by what I think is a suggestion that any work on OAM relevant
> to an IPv6 EH does not belong in 6man WG. If that is what you've suggested,
> then what about draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam, which is in WGLC, and Ali
> and I are working to resolve comments? Are you suggesting that we should
> stop the authors of that draft find a different WG to anchor or hold the
> BoF? I'm puzzled.
> Regards,
> Greg
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:00 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=
>> wrote:
>> Hi Bob and Ole.
>> I’m not supporting the draft for adoption by 6man. I know you’re shocked
>> ;).
>> I have one main concern with 6man adoption that I think many can agree
>> with.
>> This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit
>> identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which
>> this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to
>> drive.
>> Others have said “this is not 6man’s concern” and I agree because 6man is
>> an ipv6 maintenance WG, not the segment mapping working group.  I believe
>> the authors should find a WG with that concern to drive this work. I know
>> starting work without requirements is fun and exciting, but you will likely
>> end up at the wrong destination.
>> Brian had one suggestion on this topic.
>> In the past I’ve suggested SPRING, or if the authors desire, a BOF to
>> build consensus and gather requirements for its parent SRm6 work or some
>> variant of it.
>> I hope the authors, WG, chairs and AD consider these points during this
>> adoption call.
>> Thanks
>>   Darren
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* ipv6 <> on behalf of Bob Hinden <
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14 PM
>> *To:* IPv6 List
>> *Cc:* Bob Hinden
>> *Subject:* Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
>> 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:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------