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

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 27 May 2020 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.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 708693A0D5A; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=H+lJb9Yb; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=JFObjC3R
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 CLzBPHLeKen7; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB723A0D60; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04RMvPxi026854; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:01:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=1HhjiTXHuvyFhqzFp+Sq0psZ/sz8gQc24VysTa4Fz10=; b=H+lJb9Yb2jpFXoMtOQ7o2MnVL3kv5/f2/DJmrOwq0n4WHGmyZsxBbDsKzTC5N5zxSuMP 7MPOsvFNQMUMG6uMtdtNRAZ0mpqyzBuhTlktCKnyZzchR7iao04hXwPbNza9YVJ7JZMI xgMT7qgqK6uDH2HJbos3g9RCRqu4UhMJYdX4yUnJ4O1RsLGD1uX93Llci4FPSDbaBMXZ OUOtETKML6Ol+tBHHkuNkh/7LECSd4d0WwWk0lxuM/Z6DhFNDyJhkZtoBazeL9FGRrYM MdPdDIx1m8x8cHO4X+hq6BcmMXxejc/cdJwWmd6J9NltBnZ5KU7GLsXl558DVsAQhQ/k kA==
Received: from nam10-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10lp2102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.58.102]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 319v6drj5d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 May 2020 16:01:48 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FTIjsxuNSWFBfY88pXJRTajrJRLbvNuLmsmpPI1ihREXL7Ke3lbCe0B0ZKTBNtJ75Wyy9+Ebm3stnmNRqWoU1H6fkTXyUWNx11sX2jlW4IQJmFz1oeeo4othRWt/3xSgzi6/THkXAd0+IO1iteElmj5WqCWS6Jsj5V7g0xaTYF0ZM/SAYCsGPXbXj86QsFklVaYGG6kkfKj8V8EPzgGvhj4CR8QVKeYC3ML92gfarEw1m3SfGeZBguM+UGwXaOhtb8O/vqKSrArX5YScGxDkZcWyIZ98TNKRC0IKR4TxIu+GxCnP0yDTyPbiWivTv4EcYldn9VuPVOKr5UKVBcDZig==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=1HhjiTXHuvyFhqzFp+Sq0psZ/sz8gQc24VysTa4Fz10=; b=AinaqiXpYJVMNanB3pXifNbHSm68LBeI2uQQ+nlUCRanlrHWT38EAuLchrYhYw7Mg37wRWc0V6PPmqByDteu54XpmE0SB7hNYNgquItF3RUB6QznbMCp/CbYayGvJgNIJopyQRZCe/lc46N/jDxdv33MIWyNDXOo8e26u/KwANfOge0+EUMFNgndaNwH19PfYB4n1u3UZ2utLGPyrIL/tkee/vfdkk+jK+D2V6IRS5ibj6O/QEXfoE9EM/Q8muCCMRBnTCDq+9MAXvzGCKKL5KRCMNkcC29ainEpCUbchNki5IEtBdwIhUDujAV1ogNBV+ADXFTrbThErsgAvLDJHQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=1HhjiTXHuvyFhqzFp+Sq0psZ/sz8gQc24VysTa4Fz10=; b=JFObjC3R8u6cVVK44bgy+o2FC/atsTV2XbCEUxlYI+ylHhKin1KExRIdnMwejyMw+6X58PyilRdN/+qPiDFkdxnNs+CKR57+h50TeX3FvkRfU0DzuEM/VdcJYVJXvTylIzWUyqCp5M/VL10HWp9T1acb5tDQ4Q7cqgUGBUMJHrQ=
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB4058.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:81::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3045.8; Wed, 27 May 2020 23:01:45 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.018; Wed, 27 May 2020 23:01:45 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.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?
Thread-Topic: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Index: AQHWNHDbzqQKXgJDdEqACih6SQrStai8fdMAgAAGkQCAAAcLkA==
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 23:01:44 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR05MB6348A9856DF2B293804E0B56AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com> <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com> <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com> <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-27T23:01:43Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=e956543d-4d7f-45fe-9b70-8c7757314d68; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.4.0.45
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9d0ec6e4-68d8-475f-3722-08d80291ed90
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4058:
x-ld-processed: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4,ExtAddr
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB4058016D2D7D6C9DD4749BE6AEB10@DM6PR05MB4058.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: WznpHf8IUWZZ7NcP3nt3av38F7zHMp0eDD/wrrL8OujaECNwGB9LWUI6P3MM6xazFKkXscVlgitYwV/Gcvt7hKuwerNWkWhu4yZr1lH/bKoyxvg9TbQoFr0T2S4aqPdenJq9OSecVfE6wplpIeeQPK/rzriqpqYRuL2A2IA9ni7iN99kPc0zm9Cx3Sj+wzK+280G0aqnC8ApAfb/XwN11AvLPhpXXWa1oTPmyI8tLGQCftRhszHf5VZ8CxyWT1no7VZqOOody8bTeaochXhcDnNJiiF+jWsI2Y0xpBjHfWb431syCwZHSS5NXrEFl2XMjNM3BfW7fxFbDS/sBNPSZ9ylC8q+l0x3IEd1Z3t9Q/5lwycGREHHHF863J7NQtp1MSdxMbI2+TLDl6H1f4wOBQiaqvqYHj6jAYGscNbEuG+Y+Ye/fmdM0rqwkFSoe4RS
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(346002)(55016002)(86362001)(9686003)(478600001)(66946007)(64756008)(66476007)(5660300002)(7696005)(76116006)(66556008)(83380400001)(33656002)(8936002)(4326008)(53546011)(316002)(71200400001)(8676002)(110136005)(2906002)(966005)(6506007)(26005)(186003)(166002)(66446008)(54906003)(52536014)(491001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR05MB6348A9856DF2B293804E0B56AEB10DM6PR05MB6348namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9d0ec6e4-68d8-475f-3722-08d80291ed90
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 23:01:45.0171 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rLLgbcyp8tdkTt4UK8lkScudjsFbUCMWz8HN/mdbZnWGZTJWrl9YZYcXbQ0bfWQ+O54JHHFQPCEo4WQSnMMUxg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4058
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-27_03:2020-05-27, 2020-05-27 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005270171
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EZ3CH9AQ0HB2xtukJFfbw8ywz1k>
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 23:01:53 -0000

Zafar,

Many of the drafts that you list below are unrelated to the CRH (e.g., draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt). Many do not exist and are not required (e.g., OAM for debugging the mapping table).

Try to understand that the CRH is a building block that can be deployed in many scenarios. It is not a grand architecture.

                                                              Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 6:32 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>; EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.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?

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi,

The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP changes will be required. E.g., it will require

  *   ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions)
  *   To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt)
  *   For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt)
  *   BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling, draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus)
  *   PCEP extension (TBA)
  *   OAM for debugging the mapping table
  *   Yang interface
  *   More to come

The scope of CRH is "limited domain" and not the "Internet".

Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called "building blocks" fits together?

If author's claim is that the home for the architecture work is not Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first defined architecture, use-case and requirements.
This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors.
Why they are looking for a short cut?

CRH is a "major" change and outside the scope of 6man charter.
It should follow the proper IETF review process.

Why CRH authors are trying to "skip the queue" and "skip the routing area"?

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:09 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@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?

On 28-May-20 09:50, Robert Raszuk wrote:
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

Adoption is not acceptance. At least half the messages on this topic are written as if we were in the middle of a WG Last Call.

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.

Indeed. Exactly. Not in the least about consensus that the proposal is ready for approval. Just that it is ready for discussion and, as you say, that there are people 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.

That's for the WG Chairs to evaluate, and I expect them to evaluate singing in chorus appropriately. Also, and this is not a grammatical quibble, we don't have "members". We have participants, and we don't count votes.

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.

I agree that CRH is not in scope of the SPRING charter as it stands today ("the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6)"). But let me say again that we should hear the opinion of the routing ADs.

Regards
    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X9nnCHwtlMnfPJCt-JAQWt_RZK_9HziPYxC-DEez6J3r6JBFErtYntrfAskH9yNv$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------