Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

"" <> Fri, 06 December 2019 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CEC120227; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:14:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.615
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=0.874, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdClUqFMlJog; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CB212000F; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:14:17 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=oFIsiHPeHRvV0BSgfQ2wpPyqKywI3MZ4DWCYja/FNJ0GvHP7c+qYw9fOfYEDqo/HT/iH/KIT22Y18ADVqW5om2KjeB2jZnC6PCT9U6Iamed+e/cMDZxmQ8UJabPLjRIE/t0sypUtEwx/HznK8GkfgCmca1miDJHOPv2lYvCf+fH9wxFps7u9iWiHpHCtlReex2ytcPmD1XvyymNCNoVwSUq3RiGIRius+OWg9/SFArNnk1Kr8pXjC1QxLIG0WAkCPWDQNObnquW9xR4hu1T+cFY7WECXv7Pw04lxxZf2pveFL2HY2mxON+dKtkCMJ++i2Vu6gtLdnZHEOfKPZXWQ3Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NXZhV6dqZrgnJHXGnUmqxPQEJD4A4R5/GiMZN/eL0KQ=; b=UqvyFTeCaFFKx7LJzZeGpewpCiZqr4Rzr3/VGhOOjqKdqA3ZQ0oQFFSOMbad1krGYqi5LUOqBihB7XwtbsyT9fpudNSwnH+WUKGMDYQtdBnn0iL6Et9YEtm8qn1T5m2mHBp5AwMDYHNYk0rBOJHkB4aV6zCNN/FuwruWuRPA5Mt8PnBjJx9W+orz9i8XRaW/puCPRlSUQ3D9CCBmy+R02eye8ERRLRFvfHknpF3IJxFlK5t3WcJ4fiC7U8hP82HxPb+jmNZz9AIFq5Q1OyTlZRnfX/1bbNAy9vuIq8jre6zbmb5meDLtfFMAogGguvI5RDrZ2SLTDRF1YZGnZLfacg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NXZhV6dqZrgnJHXGnUmqxPQEJD4A4R5/GiMZN/eL0KQ=; b=B9qPraikKGvaRmVUSwTaGceU4V9oK3d1hrCN0FRQ9MhI8rcCMAzhiKW3NHTXrZ2FOIj4MhIkjcUX4Np7h2QgcC6l03NRU32sb+lUIaCoCVZW0oZiufKIALMlgJP/ueVA2LdqkOntHreLN+M/aX+3ZauhLT0zu8KI6pfeB6iiGM8y4N8mU/oIjHbidlAw7Fr2oM0TcAV48vZ8+clbldvseeKnrbrOtYXIkNiy2g7djnjGfXTrj7dufwldTrjre2M+PwN12t54vRylYya8rQYrZP0fUOboWFnzcg+GcQGa4UtU6f39/UawD+bAohR+/NltKQb+9QXCyR6zH+AFC/vurA==
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2495.25; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:14:14 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2495.25 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:14:14 +0000
X-IncomingTopHeaderMarker: OriginalChecksum:5B94E8BE7B4FA65E5709BAB9CF0915638860232B683FBCA767C4E7E1B7B38E5F; UpperCasedChecksum:85B9439A431F2CD9FF1961869D447D6E06979636FB014D128759A7E5B8D449CE; SizeAsReceived:8703; Count:50
Received: from ([fe80::ad00:a3b6:1bac:6f52]) by ([fe80::ad00:a3b6:1bac:6f52%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.015; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:14:14 +0000
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:14:24 +0800
From: "" <>
To: "Ole Troan" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Cc: "6man Chairs" <>
References: <>
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart181134006871_=----"
X-ClientProxiedBy: (2603:1096:202:2::25) To (2603:1096:203:9d::21)
X-Microsoft-Original-Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from cmcc-PC ( by (2603:1096:202:2::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_1, cipher=) via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:14:13 +0000
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
X-Microsoft-Original-Message-ID: <>
X-TMN: [Ct3KvUn2QfzZddlAojpDPlzo8X9muHct]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-IncomingHeaderCount: 50
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 5017229f-a4c7-466d-ed89-08d77a2447a6
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: SG2APC01HT105:
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: k9BKTzR2m/o9F4g66/Pf+3+MGmR5P9Z8Z4VX0LxoLrFSO+KfLv4XDv9oqI6QkrFKPN82Dz6XfbnpL7S4eVHwDuoZuFxaKrGkrZku0jHUxX/UNchNSGhB/HNuwQG+ZesM/yczd9bVeA5U48cJo+KxDwcpcrqphqdFwOo0L+b4PtjF7mT3vS5A9mmjE9K3hBUKvnFY6VpQb4POZiVxe6bjkLBodj0cR4DmFheBy/3VSx0=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5017229f-a4c7-466d-ed89-08d77a2447a6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2019 08:14:14.4792 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT105
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 08:14:20 -0000

Hello Ole and all,

I re-read this version again with the following comments for the WGLC.

1. Section, the penultimate bullet.
The sentence "The traceroute process at node N4 checks if its local SID (B:2:C31) is locally programmed" should be "The traceroute process at node N4 checks if its local SID (B:4:C52) is locally programmed".

2. Requirements Language
[RFC8174] should be added as a nomative reference.

3. Section 3.5 SRH TLV
This section only tells us SRH TLV is defined in ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, nothing else. I think this section should be removed.

4. Section 4.3 Monitoring of SRv6 Paths
This section is a story or a use case. No specification is defined in this section. It should be removed or moved to an appendix.

5. Section 2.1 Abbreviations
ICMPv6 is defined in RFC4443. Why does this draft use it as multi-part ICMPv6 defined in RFC4884. This is confusing.

6. Section 4.1.3 Error Reporting
ICMPv6 is defined in ICMPv6 related RFCs. Does this section want to extend ICMPv6? If yes, I don't think this doc is the appropriate place. If no, why do we need this section? to emphasize the things that a router should do?

With all the commets above, I don't think this doc is mature enough to pass the WGLC.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
From: Ole Troan
Date: 2019-12-05 04:53
To: 6man WG; SPRING WG
CC: 6man Chairs
Subject: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
  As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
  Title    : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
  Author   : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer, M. Chen
  Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
  Pages    : 23
  Date     : 2019-11-20
as a Proposed Standard.  
Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end on the 18th of December 2019.
To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as early as possible, we would require at least
two reviewers to do a complete review of the document.  Please let the chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer.
The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group, with discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: