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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 17 May 2020 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 75F073A0C4A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.903 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 E2v9FFDLEPCf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8086A3A0C49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id a9so4928093lfb.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PZhp2CJpgEB3OhDciN36Jqm1Of+A8WLCGdz9ChzTDLI=; b=SKM03npY3/72Uhm9zdTfHPM+eCi5fZ8TAb7NL0BmyIEbw9EmbOVR8by6Orsn89PmAZ 1hzp7fXfr+6sYjA1xIqBZ1+6qt9SidxAiRwBza4jEDykXqXpez5AP9SFRyTZyfK0XGQ5 0ZtHIBgfEqOdJRn8mii1I6ZJzgY+OeVrC5/gUitS2mciHcYXJjs3hDUhSFpekxoyEhSq AcxrJLqJuRYCMNvoVTxt2pRdj0KGsnV+hXlotcnXysNu/3eoDVthn9XKDYFVts5vB0nm qYNsCEXVlEmwhN3mBzY9wW8wozHvW6GZUPExVj0YMbHdiFF6sFElJtcWU7cc4NuAfApp cclw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PZhp2CJpgEB3OhDciN36Jqm1Of+A8WLCGdz9ChzTDLI=; b=hMEk3zfH6b8UIuygBpXhjH0ifAFyjbS8vGqDzKquVt6qK3ViQobRaYsHaq+jzGOSjS 3XFj3gLZWY5I8qsvi0SqZRFJ0Bq23ZII6rJ2BjDtVq56rh4dup9Um6uhpBYVDaytE2ze kTuGCGTUMsbYeMAKf+yZAIPt5QM5/6cm/+m+dQywCrI0PlyYFh523Csbhe+ztH4gaahK DnRk86FosFuNahJq8HY08KGHSbJ+cf8VaY8cxPc++3zY6D75XWZwUIkgDPMkvBhp7efo 7Nn65vya7qLW58ooUL+f1BqZXMJ8wDArWUMcF8zY3LT9vcwF8X1p1ROXc7ZGbag+XkS9 T0hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bRPHHI8Sshd6MInB9c04WYDvabWSqnqKJ0zYk6Fo0lSyFnnzj QrXVX55DUFrkD8Y40o4VHyZFoGgup8KPRiLhVec=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMYr/PlNePzuAFu2jEtLfjwpvItp/eyjG9S184cn6hb4+ZSMrYYb99ihFPydvIHCA5CaRLw/siU28ecOYs6cM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:110d:: with SMTP id l13mr6927321lfg.93.1589676338524; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <BN6PR11MB408104884A42DC2A393D0C09C8BA0@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmWMPFSv=gcXEkEk5LsbcE858VEJeAg5D3pGzQeOu2-_JA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB63489BC65E70047EB738F063AEBB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63489BC65E70047EB738F063AEBB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 17:46:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV_beqx3gH91Xo+rcxdHnhnhcN+2uKcbD5to5d_opthBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007735c305a5cd5d5f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qROiuTyVs1Zt_EHJfqzb7uumQOY>
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: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:45:42 -0000

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>rg>; 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$>
>
> as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this
> document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the authors.
>
> Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for
> advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the
> working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change
> going forward.
>
> This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.
>
> The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this
> draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is
> appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been
> active in resolving issues raised on the list.
>
> Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as
> contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us
> an indication of the energy level in the working group
> to work on this.
>
> Regards,
> Bob and Ole
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WxlH9jPuRZnF6DX0UIsFN2cS5t76jXU-Z3NMUNXACufRqrY7xBnnYVSulCrJN_hr$>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>