From nobody Thu Feb 9 02:41:02 2023 Return-Path: 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 88A15C14F693; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 02:40:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MZYGHuX9HSKJ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 02:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR02-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur02olkn20825.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe16::825]) (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 2B781C14E515; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 02:40:55 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=BZ5R07U6f6ZDSBmzpUT62YKIrhjrIP5MmiGOmTUWfSyHxfFRMwRvSgtRqTV5bsyGhE2ETDUH5ZR/WQN0jvkCE2tFTuYmjEY+ze5BFE6icLO0t/rjhFDK5RTRQtAprd0rU+kzHjLBkrtUC2WUOodiDP9i7xSekUHfDjEDegRwzcxleUEV+HQerUcTBgAwM9m6No1M7vFApKo/+Qw+tvPCOL+cELNzuLjxxU7ijzjBKfTKQm3eNawV9rXCzCmeX2jHgQt8/7vFUukasu3tBI+3RVdPzbiigd1PRDwn8/91P7DryJ2mu9Od/WRXZaVR/fh2oWO72VCBxRTfSuW5k8J6BQ== 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-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=QZn9dVAeax6finLHuLsZLB1WUiNeZ+fVVRZXM+hrNAw=; b=luKN9tCEOwTJSra8JIL78y/yY3k9brAegvaeLVLK3qtNeMuYjQwQ84vOWRiBWVyE+kvyjrn0V1h4taxjacX+dQF3+TMaUHAJkrbImsI+VROaY8gfVqhnhGSu79WwxhHCkHhp5b0MfhsKh6ybLSogZRk84AfPgsJV4UHgwaflEh2pMZvefr3iDgN2auq//pfbGKBipHa4EfLtl7uvcj/0bAex+43j8uvI05we0XwuUjfKE/Wo9IPuXgsAk0FWPdno71DYnV19+k8qpgCEoycMI52HLEKi1UhX4HLZDqGyrZWGrsZtpKxp2ybl8WL9ded/ZV7FPYWNuLr72Tt0YVgjMw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QZn9dVAeax6finLHuLsZLB1WUiNeZ+fVVRZXM+hrNAw=; b=NdNJ+WLd0rtjex5qGFekFSV4hOX3+KK93ookefybeWXRivZfommWFz9/MNFyipHtc6KQYzzGfkGQo333rftoIJjvdUgtJC/bUAWfRGTDZlr4WVOVju/hCk83djAJN6GEdnpwbROGtbS2qST6U1l3+tmHJXJRuz7Il4FKMzSsXfXojP72VAgv5wUv+zwrLIrwM0Cy++KLMPPNSoV2iHmAWzXwWxwCH4OaUaw0cMIU67fDfzL6BnZt2ccl7PhOHAqj6O0P2eNpVqv8p1PXvZJ3GTEvM+BZP36kPub2YXwvDalCClXoSe8Yaw13j5OFhmUeCwYSjxXi6IO9Rl2I9ShQaA== Received: from AM9P193MB1731.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:20b:3ee::24) by DU2P193MB2179.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:10:2f1::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.6086.17; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:40:50 +0000 Received: from AM9P193MB1731.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::f7b0:80e2:9401:5b8c]) by AM9P193MB1731.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::f7b0:80e2:9401:5b8c%6]) with mapi id 15.20.6086.019; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:40:50 +0000 From: Mauro Cociglio To: 'Joel Halpern' , SPRING WG List CC: 6man Thread-Topic: RE: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method Thread-Index: Adk73MJq1IQZWsbXSMma7Q7vKH1Kug== Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:40:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tmn: [xNLq+I/GSc8WzEp0gXbNIWMF/b3etyXP] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM9P193MB1731:EE_|DU2P193MB2179:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c5e1622b-153d-4352-4e34-08db0a8a1c7b x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?us-ascii?Q?9D/vyds7Wvq9cOAo7oA3Kdf7tgBxTQ1VxRO3XvChdDmx97kLeZpuw3mEPcNb?= =?us-ascii?Q?KQM3peiU+cR4qwQAptrbQIbLF3/mJgZSnG+ApywqhieVU8+kfAak31AUipgU?= =?us-ascii?Q?rCe3DfB9nNPeh+hOnWA9qWLlnF3eU24i30ki/yPCRxR5pizGsu5hxsEZh67/?= =?us-ascii?Q?/sP7r9FAtaxJeHqdzEw961N3HcumCgBl1CaYZL/7pmajEODEZGaM8oojOTBi?= =?us-ascii?Q?TPQbiRbYkLLtf2yFK4wA19/N6vRox/cPGSxn2A7D+cZ5cE3csQUlbl2fGF3R?= =?us-ascii?Q?Vbo0TZ4PjECbJb3/Vzob/koP8JQWZQOTWIY3x573I8RxH4/THqF5aVEwEbYl?= =?us-ascii?Q?yhwA9UiuklpE3pkE8vM7khREduF3oois6Brvd4uFUOcCAsO5oAWL5cexs96m?= =?us-ascii?Q?54a1gG7RZP6hTy4sohN1G3WncNyV2vxdFmqyEGE1qv39pgLOUYqpfsjpCm6C?= =?us-ascii?Q?GNx9tcsDkXXvJjberdMhpEnd/anJpasLs2ZoNOmQUDOGKWRR3aP/+RvsWB1x?= =?us-ascii?Q?migL6BcFxmHmQgOB3tSVQVfj8SrMg00JlvQiFQ9ZsgfH7mxgwiCcG5AXAxod?= =?us-ascii?Q?pLAZoCjFtIHVyuLN0LVeW4W3v+zw1fWaZXjUrKSFa9vNHp2jwsMaNPe075Ij?= =?us-ascii?Q?vTn709fJ+gfbNlLGBkP74cjRjLJbRKqIzJ8ZcwnbphFe3+k93wZajFhGDRnT?= =?us-ascii?Q?PiAkou0vWcnl3vGwETF8f0v/PKUb7mBKxX3oBSv+0rdoBx0dq14ukgrzhVT7?= =?us-ascii?Q?8nfr3rgkC8/84f6ozO7cXrrf+4C9O3LIyZ2mxwykZJzOdN5bk3r4447m0NKx?= =?us-ascii?Q?+xPP2D60OtHpwFZJzX51EuKmURpOs7WVnTGwXEGF31H9aWINzviYD/Gdac1K?= =?us-ascii?Q?/5T3CYpHKh8Jwq3L7lizDb69afRF3XmbVnkZGWsOdpuTjyjXjYCkRP0xebiR?= =?us-ascii?Q?wzWASagjwNF5tKGT6g5TXN+o91QGvGHA04bdMEpmPZAk0bV1IGYywFVdzPW/?= =?us-ascii?Q?UxRp5SMPFsHkJOFgXjsKJbSTpu37CjppY8yZ6M1eFhnxU09p6/xbWql5SQqX?= =?us-ascii?Q?NDTgbIJguBugl5yBUdYjtSJEIpPC2IagIkWTHCnNl+MCBtRp2X9V2u6dJyev?= =?us-ascii?Q?Uiz1p2Ph6gIsOQn7Xo5MFLVmO6vcJvWYL7hH+t/oXCarJ1nv3scpbRiEcDl6?= =?us-ascii?Q?ycQltLCXgMhTWB/XR2ah14tdfAvZPoE7yjf+yXh29/kkeDUHTfnWV0QdAfsq?= =?us-ascii?Q?T0tdqhmpe6uxwkBRE2RXLoC7i/IYw/R7JQCoDaPzTA=3D=3D?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM9P193MB1731435C0DB68DF9FFB8442D9DD99AM9P193MB1731EURP_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: AM9P193MB1731.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c5e1622b-153d-4352-4e34-08db0a8a1c7b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Feb 2023 10:40:50.2508 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DU2P193MB2179 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [spring] [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:40:59 -0000 --_000_AM9P193MB1731435C0DB68DF9FFB8442D9DD99AM9P193MB1731EURP_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, I support the WG adoption of this draft as co-author. I am not aware of any IPRs relating to this draft, beyond those that are al= ready disclosed. Best regards. Mauro -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 > On Behalf = Of Joel Halpern Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 1:44 AM To: SPRING WG List > Cc: 6man > Subject: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation f= or Alternate Marking Method This call is for the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark This email starts the WG adoption call for the subject draft (as requested = by the authors, with apologies from the WG chairs for how long it has taken= to kick this out.) This call will run through the end of the day on Feb 1= 6. Pleaes read the whole email as there are a few points, and it is not th= at long. Please comment on whether you think this topic is something you think the s= pring WG should work, whether you think this draft is a good starting point= for such work, any issues or concerns you have, and whether you would be w= illing to help be contributing and / or reviewing the work if the WG does c= hoose to work on it. 6man is copied for their information, as this is different from but related= to an extension header proposal in front of 6man. Authors and named contributors, please confirm to the list that all known, = relevant, IPR has been disclosed. If it has note, please remedy this gap. The spring chairs have noted one aspect of this draft that caught our eye, = and we would appreciate WG members who comment on the adoption to consider,= and if possible opine, on this. As we read this draft, as distinct from t= he related 6man extension header work, this causes the recorded altmarks to= only be updated at routers identified in the SRH segment list. (We presum= e this would include all identified points in a compressed container.) We c= ould not tell from the document what the value was for this as distinct fro= m getting the measurements at all routers. Do WG members understand and ag= ree that it does have value? As a lesser point, we consider that one quote in the draft is misleading an= d will likely need to be reworded in the near future. The draft say "SRH T= LV can also be used to encode the AltMark Data Fields for SRv6 and to monit= or every node along the SR path." It is unclear if these was intended to m= ean all routers (most of which would not see this TLV) or if it was intende= d to refer to only those routers identified in the SRH, in which case we pr= esume it will be reworded. Thank you, Joel -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --_000_AM9P193MB1731435C0DB68DF9FFB8442D9DD99AM9P193MB1731EURP_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All,

I support the WG adoption of th= is draft as co-author.

I am not aware of any IPRs rela= ting to this draft, beyond those that are already disclosed.

Best regards.=

Mauro

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern

Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 1:44 AM

To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>

Cc: 6man <ipv= 6@ietf.org>

Subject: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Rout= ing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method

 

This call is for the draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-= srv6-alt-mark

 

This email starts the WG adoption call for the su= bject draft (as requested by the authors, with apologies from the WG chairs= for how long it has taken to kick this out.)  This call will run thro= ugh the end of the day on Feb 16.  Pleaes read the whole email as there are a few points, and it is not that long.

 

Please comment on whether you think this topic is= something you think the spring WG should work, whether you think this draf= t is a good starting point for such work, any issues or concerns you have, = and whether you would be willing to help be contributing and / or reviewing the work if the WG does choose to = work on it.

 

6man is copied for their information, as this is = different from but related to an extension header proposal in front of 6man= .

 

Authors and named contributors, please confirm to= the list that all known, relevant, IPR has been disclosed.  If it has= note, please remedy this gap.

 

The spring chairs have noted one aspect of this d= raft that caught our eye, and we would appreciate WG members who comment on= the adoption to consider, and if possible opine, on this.  As we read= this draft, as distinct from the related 6man extension header work, this causes the recorded altmarks to only be u= pdated at routers identified in the SRH segment list.  (We presume thi= s would include all identified points in a compressed container.) We could = not tell from the document what the value was for this as distinct from getting the measurements at all routers.&nbs= p; Do WG members understand and agree that it does have value?

 

As a lesser point, we consider that one quote in = the draft is misleading and will likely need to be reworded in the near fut= ure.  The draft say "SRH TLV can also be used to encode the AltMa= rk Data Fields for SRv6 and to monitor every node along the SR path."  It is unclear if these was intended to= mean all routers (most of which would not see this TLV) or if it was inten= ded to refer to only those routers identified in the SRH, in which case we = presume it will be reworded.

 

Thank you,

 

Joel

 

-------------------------------------------------= -------------------

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list

ipv6@ietf.org

Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

-------------------------------------------------= -------------------

 

--_000_AM9P193MB1731435C0DB68DF9FFB8442D9DD99AM9P193MB1731EURP_--