Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Ketan, I am trying to figure out which documents you think were adopted 
and approved elsewhere to drive the 6man work on SRH.

I did find RFC 8354, which was a use case.  It is not a problem 
statement.  It is most definitely not an architecture.  The only 
architecture documents I can find are general SR documents.  Those did 
not justify a need for SRH.  And I (at least) did not object to SRH on 
the basis of that gap.

Yes, SRH normatively references 8402.  But 8402 does not drive any need 
for SRH.  In fact, the actual text references to SRH are fairly cursory. 
  (The most significant is some terminology.)

In fact, as far as I can tell, the ties are such that there is no 
evidence in the documents that SPRING had any say in SRH.  (the reality 
is more complex, I grant you.  But there was no formal approval or signoff.)

As far as I can tell, there was no formal approval of anything by SPRING 
that can be read as a request to 6man to work on SRH.  (Do remember that 
the SRH document was adopted by 6man in December of 2015.)  The network 
programming draft did not even appear at 00 until March of 2017, 15 
months later.

How, given this history, can you claim that CRH needs something more. 
We have operators asking for this.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/21/2020 11:53 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Perhaps I will try to make my case to you (and everyone else here) … one 
> last time.
> 
> This is how I've seen RH work being done in 6man until now (in a matter 
> that fits its charter).
> 
> 1) There is a WG (not 6man) that defines the problem statement, 
> use-cases and architecture that requires RH
> 
> 2) The 6man being the experts on IPv6 design, either take up the 
> document that specifies that RH (or even if it is done in another WG, 
> reviews it).
> 
> So 6man has always had work done in (1) to reference and lean upon when 
> doing (2).
> 
> My argument of the shortcut in the case of this specific adoption is 
> that we don't have (1).
> 
> It is not in 6man charter nor expertise to take up (1) because CRH is 
> not purely IPv6 work. It is not meant for "Internet" but a specific 
> "limited domain". The SIDs that it introduces is a new "mapping ID" 
> concept. It is not an IPv6 address and neither it is MPLS. This is a 
> *_Routing_* Header and part of a new Source *_Routing_* solution.
> 
> Therefore, without (1) being made available to 6man, I believe that 
> working on (2) in 6man is to me a shortcutting of the IETF technical 
> review process (specifically of the *_Routing_* area in this case) for a 
> solution and does not provide the necessary reference for 6man to work on.
> 
> Why the rush?
> 
> I close my arguments.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 22 May 2020 09:03
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; Brian Carpenter 
> <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Chengli 
> (Cheng Li) <[e-mail]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>; Robert 
> Raszuk <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 6man <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of 
> CR in CRH
> 
> Ketan,
> 
>  > On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
> <ketant=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:ketant=[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>  >
> 
>  > Hi Brian,
> 
>  >
> 
>  > Please see my previous response to your comments.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > My argument is not legalistic. I am not as experience in IETF work as 
> you and Bob are. But what I understand is that the reason why we have 
> these "legal" process of charters and BoF is to enable a proper 
> technical discussion with the right context and details of the proposal 
> presented for review of the community.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > I do not see how shortcutting them helps anyone and I wonder why it 
> is being done in this case?
> 
> There is no short cutting here.  The adoption call is to determine if 
> there is interest in the w.g. to take this work into 6man.   If it 
> becomes a w.g. draft, then the w.g. is responsible to decide what 
> happens next.
> 
> It’s a first step, it is not a decision to publish it.
> 
> Bob (w/ w.g. chair hat on)
> 
>  >
> 
>  > Thanks,
> 
>  > Ketan
> 
>  >
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
> 
>  > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>  > Sent: 22 May 2020 04:18
> 
>  > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Chengli (Cheng Li) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>  > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>  > Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
> 
>  >
> 
>  > On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> 
>  > ...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new 
> Source Routing solution..
> 
>  >> “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the 
> IPv6 specifications.”
> 
>  >
> 
>  > If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding a new RH 
> type is well within the scope of maintenance, IMHO. We have already done 
> it quite recently.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > In any case, legalistic arguments about WG charters are really not 
> how we should take technical decisions.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > Regards
> 
>  >    Brian
> 
>  >
> 
>  >
> 
>  > _______________________________________________
> 
>  > spring mailing list
> 
>  > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>