[spring] Regarding the adoption poll on draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

This email concludes the adoption call for 
draft-fx-spring-srv6-alt-makr.  The document is not adopted.

RFC 9343 provides a way to provide Alternate Marking Method in IPv6 
networks.

draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark is anAlternate Marking Method dedicated to 
SRv6 EndPoints nodes.

Reviewing the comments from the WG, there do not appear to be a 
compelling reason to duplicate the effort in two solutions as doing so 
increase the implementation costs, deployment issues, interop issues and 
bugs. As noted in the recent policy statement, absent such strong 
motivation, the WG will not duplicate DOH information in SRH TLVs.

One point raised during the adoption is that "In theory, the use of DOH 
+ SRH, as specified in RFC 9343, is equivalent to SRH TLV. But, the 
approach with DOH + SRH requires two extension headers and this can have 
operational implications, as described in RFC 9098 and 
draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits."

However at this point, there is no publicly available data indicating 
that, in typical deployed hardwares, SRH + SRH TLV would have 
significantly less performance and operation implications compared to 
the use of DOH + SRH. Hence this does not seem like a sufficient 
argument compared to the cost of duplication the solutions.  We note 
that RFC 8574 (SRH) allows for TLV code points for experimentation and 
testing. Hence, implementors willing to compare solutions already have a 
means to do so.  That seems more appropriate to the chairs at this time, 
rather than moving on the experimental path, particularly as it allows 
immediate experimentation.


Yours,

Joel (with Alvaro and Bruno)