Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

I agree with the chairs that there is (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution, and that there is significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the compression requirements.

My view is that we move towards WG adoption of the document, and note any concern raised by WG members during the poll so that the WG can solve it afterwards.

Thanks
 
Regards … Zafar 

On 9/24/21, 4:05 AM, "spring on behalf of Lizhenbin" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Chairs,

    Many thanks for your hard work for progressing the SRv6 compression work!
    After several round polls in WG, we believe that we have reached the consensus that CSID draft should be adopted as a WG document. 
    In addition, the CSID co-authors have explained clearly that the CSID is one data plane solution with different flavors.

    IMHO, we need to move the work forward. With the consensus, we believe it is the right time to issue a WG adoption call for the CSID draft.
    As we know very well, the adoption does not mean the ending point, but the starting point for the WG to concentrate efforts and go on to 
    refine the solutions.


    Best Regards,
    Robin



    -----Original Message-----
    From: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Weiqiang Cheng
    Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:25 AM
    To: 'Joel M. Halpern' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
    Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

    Dear Chairs,

    Many thanks for your hard working. 

    We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be adopted as a WG document. 

    Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.

    Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane), and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.

    The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and everything was OK. 

    Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.

    With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID draft.

    Best regards,
    Weiqiang
    on behalf of CSID authors

    [1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16
    [2].
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co
    mpression-02#section-11



    -----邮件原件-----
    发件人: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
    发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
    收件人: [e-mail]
    主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

    Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly.  There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6.

    As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
    There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the above.

    However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical problem.  The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions.  The above rough consensus is for one dataplane solution.  Does the working group want to choose one?  Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
    Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and solve the problem afterwards?  (That itself does not solve the problem, it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting the WG in conflict with itself?

    As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working group to deal with those.  Also, only documents for which there is at least one implementation will be progressed this way.

    Thank you,
    Bruno, Jim, and Joel

    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring



    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring