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

Greg Mirsky <> Sat, 16 May 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89183A0911 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:34 -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 uMr4eesrq1Uu for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E36EE3A090B for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w10so5818951ljo.0 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:32 -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=ODufszgHtQsmOIMj7P7fopMcHMf6duN5Ll1zGLC5tKw=; b=S6VU7V2WDEw478qwpxrGoNV9PyFPZ9+F6tjYYK8LYAkDBpqd6NYJT1sob6LOk+3vuu HvQ4c1puz1pbEaCHEu7G4lLK2NXZkwd89b/cBQM4wzFzaL4WNGLOxSXicKNZ55Dh8juU GNaCnWcXMmGPns6qriM8p0Zsk7mu9b5jLhNliN7z4PA0Irtfas8r52gkjL+WRTS3YOYh vZrZ2uGeMo4GrSetsjNyAtUnptzNAeSs16EUtVoKFWzRWvYZt2uehISKxLAT+aRLXA0K YrCHoOYDPtQPVNP+aHDZsbZRl3QA7QgftjDQHEpKaorlv5qzIY74kPBe03mDoM4Td3+x UsMg==
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=ODufszgHtQsmOIMj7P7fopMcHMf6duN5Ll1zGLC5tKw=; b=uMkT7ss0oEigVN/zsNT2tHHwcyBv6DLqjR+cJnMdb1l7CXMQs0Mf/G685Nfruh3n85 fDDzmEqzMzmWawV57Q7cErpeCHabAQIdDx5gcr/9cyOFhiawW9I00OfCv7ZHbzg874g2 SvQ7QUFR4BdrlsibcLxogFYyHGKAKtrG22GoWde5gehLykG201s9mtqSHlc+bEQ4dN6C qqDDGPsz0weC1ZzSpfbdaUPIy9Mv3IcdBqHAuO6d3Mw+0BXiBRJAffeq5WfkF9Q32ydW xCOUaEODFoqz79OTCzCZ/36RMWckBJgS0x2oKlMj9tBUESWSCSAeS2JferFWoIdLVOIc 80cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OlrGpJs3lmbbclONzImsqo8Fg1cSzdQeLx7OWUGGkn9mHucwz aHH1rhzKJ5AbatnAyvz1UhEykkQMedobg8oGRkw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUd+cUKs0MlBsrdbET1MkU5QF1Ze3VoLEqNivjnGh1aaL2VUuqs1l5pfbUOxDRFfz2eHmWq9GrxocniP4CBJI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:90d2:: with SMTP id o18mr1152386ljg.185.1589660670630; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:24:19 -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="000000000000961d8205a5c9b7a8"
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 20:24:35 -0000

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.


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:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------