Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hey Robert,

 

Thanks for your response, but I think you are not taking my requests at face value.

 

> I think you are on a very slippery slope here :) Hope you are

> double diamond skier ! 

 

As it happens. But perhaps that is not wholly relevant.

 

> With point you are making here you are questioning encoding of any

> information in the last octets of IPv6 address as it does not meet definition

> of the interface address. 

 

Am I questioning that, or am I pointing out that this is not consistent with current definitions and so it might be a good idea to get everything lined up and agreed.

 

> Well for one let's observe that interface can be both physical and logical

> entity and as such especially being a logical one can be tight with a 

> service switching vector in any network element. So even based on all

> IPv6 related RFCs you have quoted it does not violate any. 

 

This is certainly one way around the concern. If we define “interfaces to functions” (such as an interface to a VRF) then we may be done. That would be relatively easy to achieve with a simple section in the network programming draft.

 

> Then in one shot you are dismissing sound project like TeraStream

> or even recent pretty interesting proposals like draft-li-6man-service-

> aware-ipv6-network.

 

I am dismissing nothing. I am not even commenting on the technologies. I am seeking to get our document set to be consistent. 

 

> And if you look at 6man list you see that there was some discussion

> about this draft and no one questioned the point of potential "abuse"

> of semantics of IPv6 address as such.

 

Then (I assume) there is no issue to confirming this particular point and to getting all of the ducks lined up.

 

> Therefor till that happens I think there is nothing blocking SPRING to

> proceed with adoption of draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. 

 

Maybe you missed Bruno’s post? The draft has already been adopted by the SPRING WG. There is no question of blocking that step. 

 

Just to repeat (since it has apparently been repeatedly missed in reading my emails on this topic, and was even the cause of some heat in a face-to-face conversation I had in Prague) I am not seeking to block anything. What I want to do is get everything aligned. I want to be sure that we have agreement early rather than having a “fight” late in the day when pressures will be more severe.

 

I simply don’t understand any reluctance to bring this discussion into the open and make sure we understand how the architectures and terminology line up.

 

Thanks,

Adrian