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

Hi Ron,
I agree that ICMP will work under CRH as it works today without it. But OAM
is not only ping/traceroute. I think that there is value in checking out
all known FM and PM OAM tools. Though, I would not be surprised to find out
that everything works with CRH out-of-the-box way.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, May 16, 2020, 17:04 Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> The question may be moot. I don’t foresee any CRH OAM work. PING and
> TRACEROUTE “just work”.
>
>
>
>                                                          Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 4:24 PM
> *To:* Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc:* IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:00 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <40cisco.com@dmarc..ietf.org>> 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 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bob Hinden <
> bob..hinden@gmail.com <bob.hinden@gmail.com>>
> *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
>
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WxlH9jPuRZnF6DX0UIsFN2cS5t76jXU-Z3NMUNXACufRqrY7xBnnYVSulNkCsQgK$>
>
> as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this
> document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the authors.
>
> Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for
> advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the
> working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change
> going forward.
>
> This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.
>
> The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this
> draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is
> appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been
> active in resolving issues raised on the list.
>
> Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as
> contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us
> an indication of the energy level in the working group
> to work on this.
>
> Regards,
> Bob and Ole
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WxlH9jPuRZnF6DX0UIsFN2cS5t76jXU-Z3NMUNXACufRqrY7xBnnYVSulCrJN_hr$>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>