RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:17
To: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>; Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Andrew,

Inline. PC1.

Regards,
Pablo.

From: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 20:56
To: Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Resent from: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent to: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 20:56

I am completely stunned by this.

The question regarding RFC8200 is still unaddressed.
PC1: PSP complies with RFC8200.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6ZNyPMuZaaP9amVRXQdX9uRMbVk/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6ZNyPMuZaaP9amVRXQdX9uRMbVk>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pGS5O53VTDSt2tpc7mm3FVVd0Xk/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pGS5O53VTDSt2tpc7mm3FVVd0Xk>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/i0faTfqB-NduzI2VyMyQ6R60dQw/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/i0faTfqB-NduzI2VyMyQ6R60dQw>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kV6By4pnvbURdU1O7khwPbk_saM/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kV6By4pnvbURdU1O7khwPbk_saM>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/C20J-h835TJYHH2Q4KCHaS_lmek/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/C20J-h835TJYHH2Q4KCHaS_lmek>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/65GgH7fY3_TDEbE7dNXwSz64l58/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/65GgH7fY3_TDEbE7dNXwSz64l58>

This is highly – highly disputed still – by multiple parties – and repeatedly claiming something that is wrong does not make it somehow right.   In fact to claim that it doesn’t flies in the face of the last call write up which says that this needs to be adjudicated by the IESG.

PC1: Also, I do not understand the issue or what “IP Space burn” you talk about.
Please see this: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/34s0MNMsXe7lTYJr1jw-xBpoRp0/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/34s0MNMsXe7lTYJr1jw-xBpoRp0>
Was this your question?

Please see around minute 22 for the next couple of minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuoJWecyATQ which specifically calls for a credible discussion around IP space usage and agreement to have such a credible discussion, which has not occurred.

The issues around the potentially problems in relation to rfc7112 – have never been addressed or commented on.
PC1: RFC7112 considerations apply to all extension headers including SRH. I do not understand the relevance of it with Network Programming draft.

The concern here is around the SID size and deep SID stacks in the face of 128bit SID’s.

Andrew