Re: [spring] Conclusion of Adoption call for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Dear Joel,

If I may, I would like to pose a clarification question in respect to the
below announcement.

*What makes RFC8986 compliant with RFC4291 which
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression violaties ? *

Please kindly note that RFC8986 defines in sec 3.1 SID as LOC:FUNCT:ARG

The only recommendation it makes for ARG is following:







*   In such a case, the semantics and format of the ARG bits are defined
 as part of the SRv6 Endpoint behavior specification.   The ARG value of a
routed SID SHOULD remain constant among packets in   a given flow.  Varying
ARG values among packets in a flow may result   in different ECMP hashing
and cause reordering.*

On the other hand please kindly observe that
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression provides set of semantics
for ARG part of SID.

*So that means that it entirely builds on prior art of RFC 8986. *

That specific RFC went via many discussions and even appeal and was
considered compliant with IETF prior documents. Now is this your judgement
that the IETF process which led to standardization of SRv6 Network
Programming was all fake and you can simply dismiss it ?

The answer to this question is important as vendors and operators are
investing in the technology especially when it comes out of IETF as
Standards Track formal RFC.

Kind regards,
Robert Raszuk

PS.

I think you have perhaps accidently violated the IETF process. And not in
regards to compression draft. But in respect to effectively asking 6man if
RFC8986 is compliant to RFC4291 or not after it has been issued and
approved.

Because if it is draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression is
automatically compliant.


On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 4:36 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> With apologies to the working group for the delay, this email formally
> ends the adoption call that was announced at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-tvDZ5biRXvfLlyJ8IMtX-7EUp4/
> for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression
>
> The conclusion is somewhat unusual, so please read carefully.
>
> First, let me thank all of the working group participants for their
> active and energetic participation in this call.  That is what we need.
>
> In terms of the rough consensus of the feedback we received, the rough
> consensus of the working group is that we should adopt this document.
> Due to process concerns, I am placing two caveats on this adoption, one
> of which can be easily dealt with by the authors, and one of which will
> cause some delay.
>
> The SPRING working group chairs sent a policy statement last March
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/
> which calls attention to the issue of conflict between working group
> efforts and existing PS or BCP RFCs.  This policy applies to the subject
> document.  It is my judgment that the issues raised regarding whether
> this work complies with RFC 4291 require adherence to this policy.
> As such, we need a draft in front of 6man (the responsible working group
> for RFC 4291) that addresses the raised disconnect.
> fortunately, we have been told that the 6man chairs and area directors
> are appointing authors for just such a document to address the issue of
> the relationship of C-SIDs with RFC 4291.
> Therefore, I will not be approving posting of the working group draft
> until the author team has posted an initial take for 6man consumption of
> such a draft. Once they have posted that draft, I will approve posting
> of a working group ID with the addition according to the next caveat.
>
> As per the statement in the adoption call, as part of adoption the
> document is required to have a section (an appendix seems the most
> appropriate, but placement will be up to the editors) on open issues. As
> there is a lot of controversy about the open issues, and about how to
> describe them, I am providing text (below) for that section.   Once the
> draft is posted as a working group draft, the working group will of
> course own the text, and WG rough consensus can change the text.  Also,
> once we have a WG draft I will arrange to get an issue tracker to make
> sure we keep track of all the issues, not just the major ones in the
> open issues section of the document.
>
> Expected text on Open Issues:
>
> Open Issues:
>
> Issues raised during and after the adoption call for this draft are
> tracked in an issue tracker. The remainder of this section identifies
> the most significant open issues, from the adoption call, for the
> working group to keep track of.
>
> As a reminder to those reading this section, this document is a work in
> progress, and subject to change by the working group.  As noted at the
> front of this document, "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
> reference material"
>
> o Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one
> data plane solution, and given that the document contains multiple SRv6
> EndPoint behaviors that some WG members have stated are multiple data
> plane solutions, the working group will address whether this is valid
> and coherent with its one data plane solution objective.
>
> o As reminded in the conclusion of the adoption call, this document is
> subject to the policy announced by the SPRING chairs in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/.
> In particular, this means that this document can not go to WG last call
> until 6man completes handling of an Internet Draft that deals with the
> relationship of C-SIDs to RFC 4291.  It is hoped and expected that said
> resolution will be a WG last call and document approval in 6man of a
> document providing for the way that C-SIDs use the IPv6 destination
> address field.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>