IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re:Adoption Call for <draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id>

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Fri, 28 January 2022 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
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 3C2E13A187E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:24:59 -0800 (PST)
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, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LZEZ3MMijzJT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83AF3A1875 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JlN9w3YQRz8585l for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:24:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JlN9K4QYbz501Rj; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:24:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 20S3OJr8037867; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:24:19 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:24:19 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:24:19 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd61f361e30b35c6ab
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202201281124190882212@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <A423376D-CC8F-4841-A571-B4FFEF8B62F5@gmail.com>
References: A423376D-CC8F-4841-A571-B4FFEF8B62F5@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: bob.hinden@gmail.com
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com
Subject: Re:Adoption Call for <draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 20S3OJr8037867
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 61F36204.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1643340292/4JlN9w3YQRz8585l/61F36204.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 61F36204.000/4JlN9w3YQRz8585l
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gYTpIJZmWoscJFDOeommRUDOZQs>
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, 28 Jan 2022 03:24:59 -0000

Hi Chairs, WG,

I OBJECT to the adoption of this draft.
VTN-ID is not something that most people has reached a consensus. It has an irresistible debate with AII defined in  draft-peng-teas-network-slicing, now that is converged to NRP-ID defined in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet according to the latest network slice framwork draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices.
Please see the debate in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/sgyRpAW5kzcUCdat9FtW15PPbRM/ to know when/how VTN-ID is introduced.

The author needs to clarify the difference between VTN-ID and NRP-ID. The argument that the VTN-ID is not only used for slicing is weak. If VTN-ID equals to NRP-ID plus something X, someone may also introduce a VVTN-ID that equals to VTN-ID plus something Y, it doesn't make any sense.

Regards,
PSF

------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：BobHinden
收件人：IPv6 List;
抄送人：Bob Hinden;
日 期 ：2022年01月27日 13:50
主 题 ：Adoption Call for <draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id>
This message starts a two week 6MAN call on adopting:
Title:          Carrying Virtual Transport Network (VTN) Identifier in IPv6 Extension
Header
Authors:        J. Dong, Z. Li, C. Xie, C. Ma, G. Mishra
File Name:      draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-06
Document date:  October 24, 2021
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-06
as a working group document.  Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this document should be sent to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This adoption call will end on 10 February 2022.
Further, if you are willing to work on this document, either as contributor, author, or reviewer please notify the list.   This will provide the chairs with an indication of the energy level in the working group to work on this document.
Bob & Ole
6man Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email