IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 23 May 2019 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 620DA1201A8; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 xk-wTKAVX23I; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 399AA120187; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] (unknown [119.94.165.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC7D933F5AF; Thu, 23 May 2019 10:49:03 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
To: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Cc: Rajesh M <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB48219486CC62D9DAD4F613DEBE570@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB48215C3ED0EC73CEBCBC9DE3BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2yVA77PZDe7JzYQ8Sfqvd_Pxtx8kAtvHWxm6H3kZnkyiw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4821FA5861785D61A3BD3C76BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB4821C138597D9686DFE10278BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ER=yznuPeRMESW_3CMQDVrXvO13e_a-Yh5QHfuNrpK0PBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4821AD5C0CEFF91F695BBCB9BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2e4ecdcd-021c-e39b-fd12-7c43c5796e93@pi.nu> <CA+b+ERn5t0oW4xZip8iRCpwnKR5AEan0qg2_bycnj9rrLhEC9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <71fc4cce-b1fd-916b-feff-aaa06019499a@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:48:54 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERn5t0oW4xZip8iRCpwnKR5AEan0qg2_bycnj9rrLhEC9w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ohLabBs6O_Y-vJTplOSoqRcU1_E>
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 08:49:20 -0000

Robert,

I think that I might have been unclear,

- I understand that RFC 8200 does not use normative language, nor MUST
   neither RECOMMENDED, just normal English "recommended". I also
   understand that this is fine for the situation before draft-ali-6man-
   spring-srv6-oam, we recommend an order for the extension headers, but
   nothing bad happens if that order is not strictly followed.

- What Rajesh comment seems to imply is that it will fore draft-
   ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam as long recommended the ordering is kept.

- what I was wondering was if it is possible to demonstrate that it
   will not work if the recommended ordering is not kept.

- and a follow up to this, if it is possible to demonstrate that it will
   not work if the recommended is not kept, should we in this case mnake
   the now "recommended" order "MANDATORY"?

/Loa

On 2019-05-23 16:31, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Loa,
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 5:42 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu 
> <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote:
> 
>     Rajesh,
> 
>     It seems to me that "it is recommended" indicate that the ordering is
>     optional/OPTIONAL. 
> 
> 
> Indeed. There is no MUST there. That is precisely what section 4.1 of 
> RFC8200 says:
> 
> 
>       4.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#section-4.1>. Extension
>       Header Order
> 
> 
> 
>   When more than one extension header is used in the same packet, it is
> 
> *  recommended *that those headers appear in the following order:
> 
>     Does this document (or your comment) create a
>     MANDATORY ordering of EH's??
> 
> 
> If by "this document" you mean draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam then no - 
> I do not see any text there which would even attempt to enforce any EH 
> ordering.
> 
> As far as creating MANDATORY ordering "by a comment" that must be pretty 
> new extension to the IETF process :)
> 
> Best,
> R..
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email