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

Kentaro Ebisawa <> Thu, 28 May 2020 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828C03A0C89 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 edPWEvq43xM2 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E264B3A0C8A for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q9so2864182pjm.2 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=VbRCtDtohNEgNaviU7oAaYDRSyBLXYZpdECs95wEsaU=; b=NsRVR69jWjkdcY4h+C43IpmcNwL4P/YX3wcX2Pcb6JdcnXxYoJbmiiJkNH7q9twLKz 7sfhWVt8PA0krawsJCzMnpHXalTNv0Fff5dhVhaoZbogf1mVu3xn+8W+vVKprXSMVbrC 0BNmKOPqIIytMnkokf32hTBBrm/PDwJUuou/QmJgfOuTPi47ot+xboCw5G/Odp88wld8 5FeG+tEcELRhX8IKH9XHPODNJReGajAosiVjzhycnPbxEd29b/fzWuPMARM6oLvWa4ez a46ceqapUJQYAaejJOs9cnXH6lVNZsz3fmxMbLYhfH0+mIE5XX+U8uGWLPS3nnn3CXaB cc7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=VbRCtDtohNEgNaviU7oAaYDRSyBLXYZpdECs95wEsaU=; b=A8NS9JKu7StoRb0QrpaG4ft20KKZXkbdol9Y5s/BMrONeR2wULtoBRHqI5t72aGLYO obAgAlYAvvNVm3RlpfSxO7+AjjAjQI5x0SWkk5rjEWrQ54P0fib3d12AzFLr7v7CI9UD OhFkGqwdf0y7P4I++r4VgaNDlFvsyeQ1OKNWAnAZWFzlxrxT63+/AvTEwIE0HBvcY9Lh xzfb+YKQb5xGfzgL4jB3wuyRMSdQsCtRMmYL7YidooupyH64LJKt9uACqPk+OXcTVI2Z mpVfpZVLYleyEw5ErETViXM8WZkr2VMYOGx7pwso/yBtlHCgN2i8SZpDl1EvVzgVxfQG 5I5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531y2sX+fwkQ5UZdlvFc3n4+PVp8zZeW1iQYrb0zCd+zXHZ/yYwK y4vJEp9b02C3JlDFl0LRWKM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2rb5caeoz6bRYic6LBt0/IyF30B+pIf0FGWsjwmkoq17uH8Zb2dPgr5GLRzfTADDwrQiK0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cb91:: with SMTP id a17mr2905962pju.146.1590657465053; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x11sm771753pfm.196.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2020 02:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: IPv6 List <>
References: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>
From: Kentaro Ebisawa <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 18:17:43 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9785697E96B7CFE0FBA1C3FA"
Content-Language: en-US
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: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:17:48 -0000


I do not support the adoption of this work. (at this timing)

There are a couple of similar proposals (i.e. G-SRH, uSID, VLSID), and I would like to see the discussion among them more matured before adopting any of them as a WG draft so we can avoid the remaining ones to be rejected in future just because there are one already selected as a WG item.

If CRH is not intended to be used for the same purpose as other proposals, then I would like to understand for what and how CRH will be used and clarify it is not trying to solve the same problem which other proposals are also intending to. This way we could compare and adopt one of the other proposals in future as a SRv6 SID compression solution, regardless of the status of this work.


Kentaro Ebisawa
List: <>
Biz:  <>

On 2020/05/16 7:13, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 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:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------