Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 20 September 2021 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@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 D4ACE3A08E7 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 uF_74mC1LurU for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 41E133A08E2 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id a20so19427975ilq.7 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8UOWA8VVbPZoziETeNly8MClTUu146Hw2Fiw9bx+GT0=; b=lKdIArwTePp1OViJgQoU3PR8B4LFH5BMg/VkFHFWFSHi4h5vx5/KSo3Ued0RIdfmS9 iXLZFQ7Y1MtOgqZ1x2uYgFOFWQ501EdxXABrZV90GN6GMtrbE78u7NrX4y6M+MUn450K W5+3vv168haaxqvekCz8v7mE6AVWEvLAtSO+PiGgU45VTBZoLBxzdxKqT3MKLLnUr6yt hQcGpskQjhv9iy7Abgrv28oiQhjbxOKLDasFCvV75/EYc3+gn7fzVx7m27cuQW8GQ6lD clUq0SN6CCyXz4eN2S+Z16uuhLYIzJup1mAH98yVsjgiQbB2bxvn10ne9EwCwAICDrZN n4Bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8UOWA8VVbPZoziETeNly8MClTUu146Hw2Fiw9bx+GT0=; b=wZEx+lveeX506k0YBhK4jwVlB8SHYZfr538v8OKNrHBbxIAkDnhgqDchT5ZtQrwr1v gRQfjJ0jdcgbIdz50bNgsoSI2pTZWO+Hu6JgBJLXqL1t+Tb3OfloGiyA6VdgjfK9+EoM AxC0KKF8b8AXDVaACA4OAtUrBYrBREV1CrzAI/Z3h7pshJ2y/no2120R22CUCwmO0UJR zOy037SyWmrEFNXf+UUUz6qvhaIdjmVz9bP9nB+OldnD52trGuxwOjLILkhdPLYGc5W7 rofQS3A7Te9iCkX51WmPUd4CVQ0naGRWGGjC+3eMLZbDrTVUyWxxL7u6A2d1h9uKH0bm tWew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JT5UVOlWpT+B0rrvZelLLLmUd3K/MgPjUnLKM7BslF2QcWqJN td0l8pD4V7PWOWpiWQ8By6ENr5pVjfxBLy94un7Dr/bYimM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDcte0ElblCZSUg/DLiHp18+gYNIWpN6rfhhmIfEum6/+TAHuuphbHa9iZsDywDk7glMJs98atF9LMvmEyDa0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1a0d:: with SMTP id s13mr17528435ild.240.1632157010924; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <15436_1631020356_61376544_15436_364_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CE99E43@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <15436_1631020356_61376544_15436_364_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CE99E43@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:26:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7RFyBm7Z_Lhc7=fm8yFH+_Ha_E2YYVLUUa-evxaz=zgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da9b0205cc702a8e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/lTI3zQLQ47OxvuHZCMRw9Wqv9P4>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis
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: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 16:56:58 -0000

Hi,

I support the adoption of both documents.

Thanks for all the effort put in by everyone involved. Few minor comments -

*draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-07*

In section 1

It is a goal of the design team to identify solutions to…
It is also a goal of the design team to consider proposals…
The design team will produce a separate document…

Should we still need to mention the design team in the introduction? If
some history needs to be maintained, let's put that in the appendix!

–

In Section 4.2.3

Description: The compression proposal MUST be able to represent SR paths
that contain up to 16 segments.
Rationale: Strict TE paths require SID list lengths proportional to the
diameter of the SR domain.

It would be nice to include why the number “16” in the rationale.

–

We should be explicit that the metric value is “yes” or “no”. This is
explicit for some metric (4.1. SRv6 Based) but not for other (4.2.2.
Heterogeneous SID lists).

–

The term “services per node” is not clear to me. Could you add some more
text for clarity?

–

What is the plan for Appendix A?

–
Nits

Expand on first use
- SRv6 (currently expanded later)
- SID
- SPRING
- TI-LFA
- GUA

–

In Section 1

The design team will produce a separate document to analyze the proposals.

Add reference to draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

–

This document is a draft; additional requirements are under review,
additional requirements will be added, and current requirements may change.

Do we need this? We have the boilerplate for the I-D that highlights it is
a “work in progress”!

–

In Section 3.1.2

D.PRS(segment list): number of headers parsed during processing of the
segment list, starting from and including the IPv6 header.

“number of extension headers parsed…” and “…including the IPv6 base header”
- would be more appropriate phrasing right?

–

In Section 4.1

Suggest to change U.RFC8402 and U.RFC8754 to U.SR <http://u.sr/> (or
U.SRArch) and U.SRH respectively; this would match the descriptive names
for other metrics in this section.

–

In Section 5.1

State that the metric is “yes” when all the conditions are satisfied?

–
*draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*

–

Section 3.1 Table 9 mentions updates that need to be made along with Yes.
The corresponding requirement does not talk about updates. Should it as you
mention it in the conclusion!

–

Some sections such as 3.4.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, provide no analysis just a
conclusion. In some of these, some analysis would be nice or perhaps a
clear reference with section number to other documents.

–

Should section 6 also include the final conclusion after going through each
of the requirements?

–

*Nits*

Expand on first use
- SRv6 (currently expanded later)
- SID
- CSID
- CRH
- TPF
- VSID
- UIDSR
- CFIB
- XPS

–

In Figure 1, you have [M1_0],[C_0], & [M2_0] but the text says 1 is the
starting number -

   o  M1_1..M1_i are routers in Metro 1
   o  C_1..C_j are routers in Core
   o  M2_1..M2_k are routers in Metro 2

–

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 6:43 PM <bruno.decraene@orange.com> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
>
>
>
>
> The Design Team has produced two documents:
>
> - A requirement document: draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement
>
> - A solution analysis document: draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis
>
>
>
> Both have been presented to the WG and triggered some discussions but are
> still individual documents.
>
> We believe it's now time for the WG to consider taking ownership of those
> two documents.
>
> Note that, especially for those two documents, WG adoption does not
> necessarily mean RFC publication in particular if it turns out that the
> benefit of long term archive would not justify the WG and IESG effort to
> finalize those two documents.
>
>
>
>
>
> This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call, ending September  20th
> 2021, for:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis
>
>
>
>
>
> After review of the document(s) please indicate support (or not) for WG
> adoption of the document(s) to the mailing list.
>
> Please also provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack thereof) as
> this is a stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this is not a vote.
>
>
>
> If you are willing to work on the document(s), please state this
> explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication of the energy level of
> people in the working group willing to work on the document.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jim, Bruno & Joel
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>