Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.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 3EF3A12007C; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bAVMJllBKUig; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEDF120033; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id t15so6755643ybg.7; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 19:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hOOm+QKcD+WYTqgs6vKpHpaTZ5FuG+2jyYHwXtDcXG0=; b=Si5FHAGxGwGsR0CwUTPXhhUwlfehlkQLvfxU0sbw7ujnIFm1aKAc3mJHZOm0+qXWdF lwGUUWuU+yueXtJK6EoWKY5gG0SXYP3sRVVUY+/uRDyL1Wrd5PrI3dlt4mNDm8EiYLtx 68faDK/6KGIBx3eAwY5mtn+N3isCmRHfRSuiNKGfjVZCYl7iOvcN+RmNDXj1WXsHxV9E DQeJIxvhLK9wQNx0MfD1Y0fArJ9S3Mi/mvhyw8g39C6PAIpbz4xoptThHZ6TrUkBD/qK Zg6J2czBQlI+pqcBCyi8KPqwHe5ixFdqR+RYnkuLcGQxlCQaE7atL82XpU6evRbFWnVc XUKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hOOm+QKcD+WYTqgs6vKpHpaTZ5FuG+2jyYHwXtDcXG0=; b=CUiV0L74gkofyxynv2fSIDz9yRnZyU0X7DjVigdD5LnQNr4shihBoAdKZkUrTPKJxc 5McOgs8H8m/0V5dX/cRh2so7E3wh3HlWjn/QCzLNJS7TwN3BP2LAXhegWHs6Tbwmgn/w v7PfhH4f7Uh18k7/Sj850e4QrYXXdxLXCgoA21Jhoq8texUXXB5P/tM3xY/FWumzx4Nv 0DO1I3gCAHxf7s57pWdb53ET/pxyiSdnyf3Yk14qMS6+IoXvymqmkQYT1kp78X6+Brm+ QeBSFEZAKlLcvmgcALLIw2AuP3gJLnXYElyO9eaWwQUESFemiQjigg0sRLCo4tpNFGOY ALaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXDMVKEFsfF/HJT9TuascKkRIJwrQFzalPHrth/dGHa6SLiV+/G c+Cn8C8Pa/9MSETjEatLz64=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7z3b31WJscrc2aRLe+Kn948R15JYfy+MGjS2MgFqMl905iLZUUaE2ZBv5OQwNkiB/sMIKew==
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:f41:: with SMTP id y1mr26964530ybr.164.1567563825695; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 19:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p199sm4120409ywe.1.2019.09.03.19.23.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 19:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:23:43 -0400
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18D85493-5FD4-4D26-B1A1-0931513DC847@gmail.com>
References: <HK0PR03MB3970C6DCC635E7CD802D65FDFCBD0@HK0PR03MB3970.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB54636A2332FED916A26A6F14AEBD0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3e31873a-278a-2154-0e71-4d820bba323d@gont.com.ar> <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com> <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Y0iya4pfz3iAnHHTixbK64bypVg>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:23:50 -0000

Hi Fernando,

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Suresh,
> 
> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> [....]
>>>> So, we should probably explore the motivation for Option 2). If the
>>>> motivation is not sufficient, we should probably standardize on Option 1.
>>> 
>>> My argument would be:
>>> Folks would do whatever they please with 1). If somehow they feel the
>>> need to do 2), they should *refrain from even suggesting it*, post an
>>> internet draft that proposes to update RFC8200 to allow for the
>>> insertion of EHs, wait for that to be adopted and published, and only
>>> then suggest to do EH insertion.
>> 
>> I have put down my thoughts on the future of header insertion work in a
>> mail to the 6man list in May 2017. The mail can be found below
>> 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc
> 
> This seems e bit misleading. What I would expect is that before any work
> is published on EH-insertion, the IPv6 standard is updated to allow for
> EH insertion. (plese see bellow)

> 
>>> P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the
>>> context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document
>>> suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs
>>> make sure that's not the case anymore.
>> 
>> Yes. If a draft violates RFC8200 and it hits the IESG for evaluation, I
>> will certainly hold a DISCUSS position until the violations are fixed.
> 
> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or leave the
> IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has had consensus
> that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be bad, wastefull,
> tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go through the whole
> publication process, and just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS"
> button pressed.
> 
> Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf and
> have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that clearly
> goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has declared that
> wouldn't let pass?

In short, this is not the case. I am *not* the relevant AD for the SRv6 Network Programming draft. If this document was in 6man I would have flagged it much earlier like I did for the SRH draft.

Thanks
Suresh