[spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 04 August 2021 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 43EA63A1142 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 qB0b-Iauv4ZB for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9CE33A1141 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Gg17w36Shz6G9jY for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1628103148; bh=FLSXYVu1gPFsNx8fCXYqD3kncPUj0OH1fuMAvvd9e2E=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=jdNRwxe0XwRlh9W/olnLzyRUYwg5D7roSVdcks5srPjQtT2wt5Xkikx10jBGKROBu pcc06qSarmaHEgM6lWXPj29tUUaB5jXfJAS3C23pUm5KDtxRUOJYmKaBF3toHm1QaT aaz+GGi9/DGIz1Z39+2tOH107QahX2grP845jh3Y=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Y0R9ecWhbMoP>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.64] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Gg17v6Wj4z6G9qh for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <4c03c28c-2b7d-0a90-c2bb-5fff53d0bc4c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:52:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nS2gnQ_jxvpbmcxs_d3JAbUCT1I>
Subject: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression
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: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:52:34 -0000

The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their efforts 
on the requirements and analysis drafts.  The question of how the 
working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the topic 
for a separate email a bit later.

Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and 
the perspectives being expressed.  While the topic was well-raised, the 
discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes clear to 
everyone what the purpose is.  In particular, the chairs have decided to 
re-ask the question.  We ask that even those who have responded in the 
discussion respond to this thread.  Preferably with both what their 
opinion is and an explanation of why.

The question we are asking you to comment on is:

Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for 
compressing SRv6 information?

Please speak up.  We are looking to collect responses until close of 
business PDT on 20-August-2021.

Thank you,
Joel, Jim, and Bruno