Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

What is 6man’s bar for acceptance of a new “routing" header.
Especially, in the case of CRH:

  *   In consultation with 6man, the Routing Area appointed a design team.
  *   One of the authors of CRH draft was part of the design team that decided CRH is not needed.
  *   After the design team decision, is there any WG in the routing area where CRH was presented, reviewed, found needed?
     *   All similar routing headers have been the work of other working groups, e.g., RPL->ROLL, SRH->SPRING.
     *   CRH is a new flavor of label to IPv6 mapping technology, more akin to MPLS in IPv6 that routing area has already standardized [RFC7510].

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 6:36 AM
To: Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Hi Zafar,

Regarding the higher level issue you are asking about the 6MAN charter and defining new routing headers, I note that the RFC8200 IPv6 specification defines the IPv6 Routing header in Section 4.4.  That definition includes an 8 bit Routing Type field, allowing for up to 255 different routing headers to be defined in IPv6.   In the IANA registry types 7-252 are unassigned.

Defining a new routing header is not a major change or addition to the IPv6 specification.

Bob



On Nov 8, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi,


  *   When consulting the 6man charter...

     *   What protocol limitation/issue is CRH addressing for IPv6?
     *   What IPv6 maintenance/upkeep is CRH achieving?
     *   “is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications”

        *   CRH is a new flavor of label to IPv6 mapping technology, more akin to MPLS in IPv6 that IETF has already standardized [RFC7510].
        *   Being a new “routing header” (that is now being claimed as being distinct from Segment Routing) is there any WG in the “routing area” where this work has been presented and reviewed?
        *   Has the routing area accepted and agreed to the necessity and the appropriateness of this new technology? Is there a document that captures the requirements for this technology and the use cases that are not met by existing IETF technologies?

  *   I have not seen a statement from 6man chairs on how this work falls within its charter as the authors have said this is not Segment Routing related work that is driven by the Spring WG.

I object the adoption of draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Jen Linkova <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:05 AM
To: 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
This email starts an adoption call for the following document:

Title: The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
Draft name: draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Link:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/

Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this
document should be sent to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can
be sent to the authors.

The adoption call ends on Monday, Nov 13th, 23:59 UTC.

--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------