Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sasha, Ketan, Greg, John, all,

I hope my email (attached) in response to Sasha’s original email, answers many questions brought up in this thread.

Thanks.
Jeffrey

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 3:00 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; Rob Shakir <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Ketan,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and encouraging response.

I will try to provide additional inputs missing architectural issues related to the Replication Segment draft.

Regarding Path Segment that has been recently  introduced by the WG – I am fully aware of this work.
From my POV this draft did not require any architectural extensions. E.g. it is a local Segment and the node where it is instantiated  performs NEXT  operation on it. The fact that the node where it is instantiated also notes this Segment and uses it for binding the received packets with a specific path does not have serious architectural implications IMHO.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]
Cell:      [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:jdrake=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi Sasha,

Thanks for your clarifications and it helps a lot.

It might help further if you could share your thoughts on what content you find missing from an architecture POV beyond what is already in the draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.

I note that we, as the WG, have recently introduced a new Path Segment via draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 17 November 2019 13:55
To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:jdrake=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Dear colleagues,
I would like to clarify why, from my POV, the Replication Segment introduces in this draft requires extensions to SR Architecture as defined in RFC 8402.

1. RFC 8402 states that segments can be global (to an SR Dimain) or local (to a single node that instantiates it), and all segments defined in this document fall into one of these categories. But Replication Segment is neither local nor global: it is instanciated in the Root node and may be instanciated also in the Downstream nodes - but not anywhere else in the SR domain.

2. RFC 8402 defines 3 operations on the active segment that a node can perform: PUSH, NEXT and CONTINUE. But the operation that is performed by the Root node on the Replication Segment is neither. What's more, it is not even clear to me which operation is performed on this segment by the Root node for each replica of the original packet.

As Ketan has noted, the SPRING WG Charter states that the WG can define "New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local
ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
replication structure) if needed for new usages".

And goes on saying that this "may require architectural extensions". Which is exactly what I have been looking for - regardless of whether Replication Segment is or is not related to multicast.

What, if anything, did I miss?

Regards,
Sasha

Get Outlook for Android<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3SNQqgvMLK41aG2EQ8XX4pn6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Faka.ms*2Fghei36__;JSUlJQ!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23bjuSQwd$>

________________________________
From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019, 07:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Alexander Vainshtein; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi Ketan,
thank you for your suggestion. As you've pointed out, the draft in discussion introduces a new segment type, Replication Segment, to realize p2mp behavior in an SR domain. Looking into RFC 8402, I find the following statement regarding multicast:
6.  Multicast

   Segment Routing is defined for unicast.  The application of the
   source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this
   document.

Hence, I believe, is the valid question to where the possible impact of multicast on the architecture of segment routing should be discussed, described.
I hope that clarifies what has been the topic of discussion on this thread.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:09 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg/Sasha/All,

I really wonder whether we are talking about the same document anymore. The subject of this thread is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3AvJoi4kZMCSL1EhyDMKMh36H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00__;JSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23Wjh_Ns4$>

It is indeed possible that you and others are referring to some other document(s)?

From reading of the draft, one can see that :

  *   It does not deal with multicast group joins/receivers or senders
  *   It does not build multicast trees
  *   It does not talk about multicast flows
  *   It simply introduces a new type of segment called Replication Segment (p2mp) for a specific local node forwarding behaviour that is in line with the Spring Charter (see below)

o New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local
ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
replication structure) if needed for new usages.

Can you please take another quick read over the draft with the above context in mind? I am positive that you will see that this is not getting multicast work in Spring – that is being worked on in other WGs.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: 17 November 2019 11:39
To: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Dear All,
I concur with Sasha and John. Intended ingress replication of a particular flow, though using a unicast destination address, is still a multicast.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:36 AM John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Robert,

As Sasha and I have indicated, your position is your own and is not consistent with the majority of work on this topic.  I’m fine w/ agreeing to disagree.

John
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:57 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

John,

> Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a stretch.

I use a very basic and simple rule of thumb ... if address of my packet is a multicast address then it is multicast if not it is unicast.

Ref: https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3De6CReeZywpiq7GCkqUmyN6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.iana.org*2Fassignments*2Fmulticast-addresses*2Fmulticast-addresses.xhtml__*3B*218WoA6RjC81c*21QFbPjRVo7hB9622FCxHnivS8PVicSm5TCW9kaF-KRqhC3G7uLL0tCrGUUxL2sAQ*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23R2v9BTO$>

Solution as described in draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment does not seems to be requiring multicast addresses hence it is applicable to pure unicast networks.

Thx,
Robert.


On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:20 PM John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Robert,

I’m sorry for the confusion.  My only point was that MVPN provides the reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of tunnel types in a consistent manner, as Sasha alluded to in his mention of PMSI.  Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a stretch.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:55 PM
To: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi John,

> Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever.

Just curious how is this at all relevant for this discussion ?

Do I have to roll out MVPN monster to split my unicast UDP stream to few receivers at selected network point ?

And last but not least who said this is at all related to "ingress replication" ??? Ingress to p2mp segment can be at any SR midpoint in the network. Are you suggesting to run MVPN apparatus with manual tree building ? Whow :)

Thx,
R.






On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

I think Sasha has a valid point.  Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: spring@ietf..org<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Robert,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

You seem to imply that a multicast distribution tree that is built, say, by an SDN controller and used, say, to act as a PMSI in the mVPN application, is not really a multicast.  Personally I disagree, but this is a matter of taste and terminology.

What looks unambiguous to me is that:

  *   The WG charter explicitly mentions ingress replication as one of “new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior” that “may require architectural extensions”
  *   The current architecture document does not cover any such segment type (whether because such segments have been considered as related to multicast by the authors, or for some other reason is not all that important. )
Therefore my concern remains unresolved regardless of whether ingress replication is or is not formally considered as multicast.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]
Cell:      [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 4:15 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Sasha,

If I have some content and I send it to you and your neighbour as two unicast streams am I suddenly doing multicast ?

IMHO N number of replicated unicasts is still not a multicast.

Multicast in my definition requires  multicast groups, receiver joins, tree building protocols etc ... and this draft does not suggest any of this. IN contrast it just describes how can we have p2mp unicast distribution ... call it fan out node.

Thx,
R.





On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi all,

I have a question regarding adoption of draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document.



These concerns are based on the following:

1.       This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals with local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in its turn, is one of the issues that could be used for delivery of multicast.

2.       Local ingress replication is mentioned in the SPRING WG Charter as one of the “New types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior”. The charter further says that “Any of the above <Sasha: New types of segments> may require architectural extensions”

3.       The current (and, AFAIK, the only existing) Segment Routing Architecture document (RFC 8402<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3RCcYJTQUoix9rL8CmszPQ16H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fclicktime.symantec.com*2F34qM9QogJnh1eY5nZPXYAkA6H2*3Fu*3Dhttps*2A3A*2A2F*2A2Ftools.ietf.org*2A2Fhtml*2A2Frfc8402__*3BJSUlJSU*218WoA6RjC81c*21TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUOvwkLSU*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23cHzDX-v$>) explicitly states in Section 6 that “Segment Routing is defined for unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this document”.

The combinations of observations above strongly suggests to me that a document defining multicast-related extensions of segment routing architecture should be very useful (if not mandatory) for progressing the Replication Segment draft. From my POV the Replication Segment draft is not (and is not intended to be) such a document.



I wonder if there is an intention to produce such a document in the timeframe that could be relevant for discussion of the Replication Segment draft.



Nothing in this message should be interpreted as my objection to (or support of) adoption of the Replication Segment draft as a WG document per se.

Bit I find it difficult to take a position any which way without a clear and commonly agreed upon framework for multicast in segment routing.



Regards,

Sasha



Office: [phone]

Cell:      [phone]

Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



-----Original Message-----
From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:06 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; spring-chairs@ietf..org<mailto:spring-chairs@ietf..org>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"





The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Bruno Decraene)



The document is available at

https://clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/35c32GQPzeBU6WDDFaDNg3R6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fclicktime.symantec.com*2F3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2*3Fu*3Dhttps*2A3A*2A2F*2A2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2A2Fdoc*2A2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment*2A2F__*3BJSUlJSUl*218WoA6RjC81c*21TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUHVCWfyU*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23ZI8tAQG$>



Comment:

IPR call:

https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/327SVFAhGtwEJZy7ns9pJN16H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fclicktime.symantec.com*2F3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2*3Fu*3Dhttps*2A3A*2A2F*2A2Fmailarchive.ietf.org*2A2Farch*2A2Fmsg*2A2Fspring*2A2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us__*3BJSUlJSUlJQ*218WoA6RjC81c*21TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUfVccUWU*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23dKAlkdP$>



_______________________________________________

spring mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3UtBbCsdVBPwVthRzL1jB8u6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fclicktime.symantec.com*2F3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2*3Fu*3Dhttps*2A3A*2A2F*2A2Fwww.ietf.org*2A2Fmailman*2A2Flistinfo*2A2Fspring__*3BJSUlJSUl*218WoA6RjC81c*21TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUhKjFqCs*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23b-IK2fY$>

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3QEWS5DMsSm3TeWhdvxL5op6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fclicktime.symantec.com*2F3KSi9HHVnunMDQNLd2U3Sij6H2*3Fu*3Dhttps*2A3A*2A2F*2A2Fwww.ietf.org*2A2Fmailman*2A2Flistinfo*2A2Fspring__*3BJSUlJSUl*218WoA6RjC81c*21TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUZIWr6Wk*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23W1FpqHq$>

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3PbPdEjZDSp26Px1FhZU7Wk6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!SV87OXuIgeMMS-tlFbRNVCWiIT-X-G_sGAxIZK3VcBvXreZ8FRP1y5I23falfQwL$>


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

--- Begin Message ---

Hi,

Please see some clarifications below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 5:12 PM
To: <[e-mail]> ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi all,

I have a question regarding adoption of draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document.

These concerns are based on the following:

1.       This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals with local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in its turn, is one of the issues that could be used for delivery of multicast.

Zzh> The draft deals with replication at ANY node: an incoming packet is replicated to a few downstream nodes.
Zzh> If that is used on a root node (of a replication tree) and all the downstream nodes are leaves of the replication tree, then it is "ingress replication", e.g. the ingress replication used for MVPN/EVPN.

2.       Local ingress replication is mentioned in the SPRING WG Charter as one of the "New types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior". The charter further says that "Any of the above <Sasha: New types of segments> may require architectural extensions"

Zzh> It's not clear what "local ingress replication" means exactly. I can understand "ingress replication" as used for MVPN/EVPN, and I can understand "local replication" (I interpret it as what this draft tries to define).
Zzh> This draft is indeed about architecture extension on replication (or "local replication"), and "ingress replication" is a special kind of replication as I mentioned above.

3.       The current (and, AFAIK, the only existing) Segment Routing Architecture document (RFC 8402<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R5uaL0FFboU6ryB3g53QkJpHP6nLdJ_YH6_lnAt0_THeoVW8aF3qEAlMXaVpdJiY$ >) explicitly states in Section 6 that "Segment Routing is defined for unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this document".

Zzh> That's fine; that document is about unicast, and in this document we're trying to extend the architecture to multicast/replication, focusing on basic building block "replication segment".

The combinations of observations above strongly suggests to me that a document defining multicast-related extensions of segment routing architecture should be very useful (if not mandatory) for progressing the Replication Segment draft. From my POV the Replication Segment draft is not (and is not intended to be) such a document.

I wonder if there is an intention to produce such a document in the timeframe that could be relevant for discussion of the Replication Segment draft

Zzh> I see that people have different interpretation about "multicast". I suppose we don't have different interpretation about "replication". This document is about "replication segment" as the basic building block for replication trees (whether it is IP multicast, mLDP/RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel or anything equivalent, or ingress replication).

Zzh> There is indeed a separate document "draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy" about how to use the basic building block to build replication trees. In fact, the two documents, "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment" and "draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy" were split from "draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-03" based on the input we received, so that in Spring WG we focus on the basic building block "replication segment", while leaving tree building to other WGs.
Zzh>
Zzh> Thanks.
Zzh> Jeffrey

--- End Message ---