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

["Francois Clad (fclad)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have read the draft and went through the many emails on the mailing list. 

At this stage, it remains unclear to me which problem this draft addresses, and why existing solutions are not suitable. I realize that this point has been raised multiple times already, and I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to describe their use-cases on the list. However, it still seems to me that we can easily address these use-cases using existing technology.

- Mapping-based traffic steering over a plain IPv6 network is what is proposed in RFC 8663
- Steering of control packets without encapsulation can be done using RFC 8754 (see section 3.1)
- IPv6 Segment Routing with small header size can also be done with RFC 8754, by simply using one of the “compression” techniques that have been proposed in SPRING. For example, draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc, which leverages RFC 8754 without any new flag or field modification.

I like working on new technologies, but I find it difficult to work on something without a clear view of the problem to be solved.

For this reason, I do not support the adoption of draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr at this time.

Regards,
Francois


On 16/05/2020 00:14, "ipv6 on behalf of Bob Hinden" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    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

    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