[spring] Carrying additional information in DOH and SRH

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 18 April 2023 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 431E0C137370 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4A0N7dnKPTaD for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 72016C17B33E for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q1B6K1dQvz6GtWG for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1681839657; bh=/LKP5dS99qVYBYnB7eog+DkyBJkhr8yui/zLFB8bjaU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=mEWR9G2sTrjDyunDJK0MWKO6fSb/za5CBhE42KdLd5K6dLDyXFFGuMZv/JduyGVBK bQqX4SIKPRqx+V0W4q0TShLDTbeUkspKsrXfmUPMDG00Pa/hcA6mE3OF3vgNrCX/lN RO9jsfyuywL/urbaNhLXK4V+TYmzI/VBOovQ4888=
X-Quarantine-ID: <lhpakzuA4VKB>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.22.80] (unknown [50.233.136.230]) (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 maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q1B6J5ML3z6GrGc for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <27147b56-b8c0-4149-ed21-ee1b993af5a5@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:40:55 -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
Content-Language: en-US
To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Dpy49rTVtCNFfanHYaVlizMJ7j8>
Subject: [spring] Carrying additional information in DOH and SRH
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:41:02 -0000

After looking at the issue of when information belongs in IPv6
destination options and when it belongs in an SRH TLV, the chairs
recommend the following:

1) Information which is generally applicable to IPv6 nodes should go
into IPv6 destination options, including the use of destination options
before routing headers for the case of IPv6 nodes that are destinations
of routing header paths.

2) Information that is specific to SRH processing should go in SRH TLVs.

3) We should not define the same information in both places.

This reflects the discussion on the list when we raised the question, 
and is now considered policy for the working group.

Yours,
Alvaro, Bruno, and Joel