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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 02 March 2020 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 F1CE83A10D4; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ecb1qgRCRx50; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2C93A10D1; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F5D0831D3; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:23:04 +0100 (CET)
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, spring@ietf.org
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <8259d37e-b460-5f76-1ce6-b0d026bccf6b@gont.com.ar>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:22:55 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/9OHRhHrTz-wdViyebtRvQVTEdjc>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:23:12 -0000

Martin,

As an Area Director, what are your thoughts regarding Bruno's claim that 
this working group (Spring) doesn't have the necessary skills for 
evaluating the need of a functionality (PSP) that this wg is including 
in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

Specifically, Bruno has noted (in 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/or8086G4iYfee5_Icw4PnhkPLBo/):

---- cut here ----
Independently of RFC 8200, the question has been raised with regards to 
the benefit of PSP.
My take is that PSP is an optional data plane optimization. Judging its 
level of usefulness is very hardware and implementation dependent. It 
may range anywhere from "not needed" to "required for my platform" 
(deployed if you are network operator, or been sold if you are a 
vendor), with possible intermediate points along "n% packet processing 
gain", or "required when combined with a specific other feature". I 
don't think that the SPRING WG can really evaluate this point (lack of 
hardware knowledge, lack of detailed information on the hardwares).
---- cut here ----


Doesn't this sound a bit like a group is shipping something that it 
cannot really understand?

Thanks,
Fernando




On 2/3/20 15:53, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> WG,
> 
> as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating 
> consensus for this WG LC.
> 
> I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that 
> disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text 
> of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to propose an 
> optional capability. Since RFC 8200 is not a product of the SPRING WG, I 
> have paid specific attention to the messages ([1], [2], and [3]) sent by 
> the responsible AD of 6MAN and of RFC8200.
> 
> My overall conclusion is that there is support and rough consensus to 
> move this document to the next stage.
> 
> Bruno will handle the immediate next steps.
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso/
> [2] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0/
> [3] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uBYpxPyyBY6bb86Y2iCh3jSIKBc/
> 
> Le 2019-12-05 à 18:15, bruno.decraene@orange.com a écrit :
>> Hello SPRING,
>>
>> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on 
>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
>>
>> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version, 
>> and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
>>
>> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not 
>> duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are 
>> only spring specifics.
>>
>> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically 
>> debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread 
>> for this point.
>>
>> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point 
>> and that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted 
>> into parallel independent discussions)
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez 
>> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, 
>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
>> delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> .
> 


-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1