[spring] Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))

Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com> Sat, 07 December 2019 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95E712011F; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kaloom.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 ja-sHGJ3y5lj; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CAN01-QB1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr660091.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.66.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D230012011E; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:19:50 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VtrZdq13LQ8K0bAK2kqN0C99PpBbSmnnl8cOzAqBnPG11WlWJKkGZzExU6CLhmkDHMpVdWru8o6QbC5GvnrCDUsiFAEYZuzlhqTTL+BgSnkZDDUxVLrZivaN3sWSpeL9nxrtK5IYEI1MOOxjh/v/pkPvprrLyPnt3NlRVo7aRR3rdAXPh9EI6lScFEcyhXDjt/RLQBntSnBzAqlKx8B3iek1swC9X+q08oxFhYR+0zLr+Z3vQ1X5TI2X4izRt9WWabVSeIyt6rEWBxFbvNI5KgD7org4VrR07vwrBiL0xc62pfXvDPwyMwyH2AONtq8cqDEMp1q9TWQ6JnIqU7+Mew==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UKqaDqNkAEWplvz2nn4lA6l+Skx5MTAWXRJqAT3oejo=; b=nLDLk8nf0Wolsh2yiDVC6spEquKcfONe4+37eKzH6XJNmYfKWn+N69BLZez2GZzqC+AICgTjbETn+/xCesd+L09nVRr6nKL2lwanyqMs3RHz83QpHj3p4nGJJIClIE9ou0BUJUpeMlXR8O5yHGahE4G0gFpg0mDiOlQom9oMIQS8cBleGO0BXhBn9AlRosZae/dvQ1zqU0OMaFUUM1SNLQUvvKaE0ynOqbPctCKmqB77FzrxPokwAVwl8C0EXwXW9mYu9b1mD/WRad83FtkBYE88TG5vOaGIe1Ymjn0MWbWXj+vy0UMocXZ8lPfUTg+7JkzuV0JlmE906B6JYcTPDw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kaloom.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=kaloom.com; dkim=pass header.d=kaloom.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kaloom.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UKqaDqNkAEWplvz2nn4lA6l+Skx5MTAWXRJqAT3oejo=; b=kisoku+iOhWPCXpx5vOPATCFbMLLNpQ5QbWRSng+OtG2kSxmFOZqjpK3p2NLzWJGJe5nI4TFPTETC4CNeuaaJqxDnDywET/h/qhvjoBtBzTOJPnBbNGMgI74Zr2CAYEKEjWVmiMCK8jcrrMoebCNzK5gAZ5kIfRyqdeCWmzSYSE=
Received: from YQXPR01MB2888.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.92.18) by YQXPR01MB2869.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.94.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.17; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:19:48 +0000
Received: from YQXPR01MB2888.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::cdc8:a6f5:5192:8f44]) by YQXPR01MB2888.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::cdc8:a6f5:5192:8f44%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.017; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:19:48 +0000
From: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
CC: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))
Thread-Index: AQHVrM61SZUFzPBRxkKj/C+0JPEcVQ==
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:19:48 +0000
Message-ID: <80A78F48-9802-4DA9-B264-1A8920C1DDF9@kaloom.com>
References: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com> <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org> <4255AD3B-379C-45BF-96E1-D3D9141A684F@liquidtelecom.com> <d59de54e-c7f8-be67-1e77-b051735d40a6@gmail.com> <3bce7b18-ea45-d29f-5dfb-1d3258b07d1e@si6networks.com> <c6e1f690-b0bf-9f45-8fa7-92ed182c5b04@gmail.com> <a2cc5cbd-ac06-e193-307c-3ffe5b21b0b1@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2cc5cbd-ac06-e193-307c-3ffe5b21b0b1@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Suresh@kaloom.com;
x-originating-ip: [222.229.224.101]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c0eba03d-94ec-4021-8b0f-08d77ae5d81b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: YQXPR01MB2869:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <YQXPR01MB2869A3D609F90924D754709AB45E0@YQXPR01MB2869.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0244637DEA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39850400004)(396003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(316002)(110136005)(508600001)(54906003)(81166006)(81156014)(53546011)(8676002)(2906002)(8936002)(102836004)(99286004)(6506007)(76176011)(36756003)(86362001)(2616005)(64756008)(66556008)(66446008)(6486002)(66946007)(66476007)(76116006)(80792005)(91956017)(71190400001)(54896002)(6512007)(71200400001)(5660300002)(186003)(26005)(4326008)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:YQXPR01MB2869; H:YQXPR01MB2888.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: kaloom.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: aIIfgl/0sYgG6UGuzVRhnoMDdIzI/EKdkCfZSIYKGfCcMn0Q3HaA3pOqsWt0LlJ2vhCnOMl0QzIq5kXTkx7URBt2OFGvK0nDyOqNbIJZcsqJJ7GzIp96TsOLb/ITtYqySeCBRq1W4lTnKxZm8aeNQzNNxNiBhDiObzP5VaJWhj1T+mVZhwWSudJHAGO+39l2B4LFrvE0yuwG9xTMIqAzXnlTOni/fX1Re7SEQtI5OlrciR67FSgWh3/spP7l3gqZPBNZT/IzyxLOYzQr9vNGrGezs8KCO8LhT9u1YLJ+nlUj2QqIjyjf9QnIcJugUNiJWVyi+cRPr6QgSnv7Sn17maDvHnR+2Csmx6BU66I7YN6qphbo1rWfH7V0e059mkgsxLhRs4idYgtFtOLG6iYyHIW1ijWzRSTAX0/ik+C6iFCAMC+MTNcrtwKqnLesfYeL
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_80A78F4898024DA9B2641A8920C1DDF9kaloomcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: kaloom.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0eba03d-94ec-4021-8b0f-08d77ae5d81b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Dec 2019 07:19:48.7527 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 47d58e26-f796-48e8-ac40-1c365c204513
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 95Hkgu/Po8sGsiRwlW6Oz98hHRQy6aHY3c3LMfebPVmHpdHx1Bs/Ut10EXTeb3MyFmmVUsyw6Kxv38SStejQdQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YQXPR01MB2869
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso>
Subject: [spring] Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 07:19:53 -0000

(responding on spring mailing list)

Hi Fernando,

On Dec 7, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com<mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:

On 6/12/19 23:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Again, comment at the end...
On 07-Dec-19 14:37, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 6/12/19 22:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]

and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done.

Why does that follow? Alternatively, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming could acknowledge that it deviates from RFC8200.

You can deviate from s "should", not from a "must". This is an outright
violation of a spec, rather than a mere "deviation".


Whether that's acceptable would be a question for the IETF Last Call rather than any single WG.

I would expect that a WG cannot ship a document that is violating an
existing spec, where the wg shipping the document is not in a position
of making decisions regarding the spec being violated.

That would be like a waste of energy and time for all.



At the moment, the draft only mentions RFC8200 in a context that discusses neither insertion nor removal of extension headers, which is beside the point. Like draft-voyer, if it describes a violation of RFC8200, shouldn't that be explicit in the text?

There's a lot of jargon in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I can't tell from the jargon whether "insert" means "insert on the fly" and whether "Pop the SRH" means "delete on the fly". Should those terms be clarified before the draft advances?

Well, if it's not clear to you, it would seem to me that the simple
answer would be "yes".

But if "insert" refers to the encapsulating node at the SR domain ingress, it's no problem, and if "pop" simply means doing normal routing header processing, it's no problem. It simply isn't clear in the text, at least not clear to me.

The fact that a folk that has been deeply involved with IPv6 cannot
unequivocally tell what they talking about should be an indication with
respect to how ready the document is to be shipped.

(pop when you are the destination but SL!=0 is essentially 'in the
network removal’)

It is not obvious to me why you think this is a violation of RFC8200 though it is possible that I misread your comment. The relevant text I am looking at is

"  Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
   processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
   path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes,
   in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field
   of the IPv6 header.”

which seems to permit it. Can you please clarify where there is a violation?

Regards
Suresh