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

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 20 April 2023 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B74C14CF0D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.795
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eJS9zl6x8ivd for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4378C152D8B for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q2SMc3fNbz1nsk2 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1682018812; bh=5mcFmoN0waaljq/5ih8JwOSwi0NwzdQ8k+3gUJnP+vw=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:From; b=KPLFb40ERFqcEgHYBvlS0/OLVLZAOxZELdg2JU6K8P/VtqQGbNrvHWrJ9VqqA8ivV hmFBd48Qr2ug2UVavUn85Hszcn5vy6U3/lkzhmjGg9qqQlmDBaDsUV83V4Aqk/fNMy jOyT4vtaQd/O+XiKP9osF/md1cIgzCof6tQxS7VM=
X-Quarantine-ID: <f7s1Dk32eRfF>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q2SMc0Ws9z1nsfK for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------PsW8AXg2wDzzXePg4Idewua9"
Message-ID: <f4cb66a1-2054-a39e-d86e-ed84d2dd6c5b@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:26:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6r2GygMj9NP3YHFNsawSnhhc71U>
Subject: [spring] Regarding the adoption poll on draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:26:58 -0000

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 

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 

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.


Joel (with Alvaro and Bruno)