[spring] Draft design team charge

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD8B3A0F55 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGxWvF6OIlz4 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net []) (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 2687B3A0F52 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1SMs73qmz6G9yT; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1594138825; bh=dLIgWe6a9OtJG6XjVuT3ImD7CEH1hN6AUY+ZawDI3kQ=; h=From:Subject:To:Date:From; b=U2yx2t4qIlsGtl/p7je+mpx9202nzyPe6bEW8Lg5ylscWVOEE+A7jlXzylIxZm7sx Wxdq+51/Qd2dvLmMMlcBBH3Z2/hwDzOKRTDvxtizPY9CJEUO7yllcXwY22a/PbB7Lo dzzcmCY2vC0C0GfrN6ccCDfTpbh/rg2vQiiNF0Sk=
X-Quarantine-ID: <VhTBUbaHm3jb>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B1SMs3Kc9z6G9pd; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Message-ID: <09c26365-2d28-80e6-7f47-7694027e6ec6@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:20:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
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/uL5cLEufipmlQQ_w3VZvb-pznd4>
Subject: [spring] Draft design team charge
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: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 16:20:28 -0000

Having gotten various volunteers, and considered what the WG needs, the 
SPRING chairs have selected the design team for clarifying the SR over 
IPv6 compression situation.

The Design team will be
Co-Chaired by:
     Cheng Weiqiang of China Telecom and
     Sanders Steffann of SJM Steffann Consultancy

The other members of the team are:
     Ron Bonica of Juniper
     Darren Dukes of Cisco
     Cheng Li of Huawei
     Peng Shaofu of ZTE and
     Wim Henderickx of Nokia
     Chongfeng Xie of China Telecom

(We understand that some members may be on vacation.  We ask the chairs 
to please get the design team up and running as fast as possible, and 
deal with vacations as necessary.)

The design team is to produce (rough) consensus recommendations to the 
WG on two related topics:
1) What are the requirements for solutions to compressing segment 
routing information for use over IPv6
2) A comparison of proposed approaches to compressing segment routing 
information for use over IPv6

In both cases, assertions / requirements should be explicitly explained 
and motivated.  Please do not assume that everyone has the same perspective.

We expect these results to take the form of Internet Drafts.  How the 
design team does the development is up to them.  Note that while we are 
asking for I-Ds, we are not assuming that these results will be 
published as RFCs.  When the working group has progressed, we will see 
if there is agreement as to the value of long term publication of this 
Also, as a reminder to both the design team and the working group, the 
design team output is input to the working group.  It is not presumed to 
be a WG document until the WG actually adopts it.

If the design team has insights into the number of solutions (are 
several already standardized?  is there value in picking one / some?) 
this may be included in the requirements readout.  If the design team 
can not agree, or does not think it is helpful to report this aspect, 
that is also acceptable to the chairs.

While the chairs would like to see prompt work, we also want to see a 
thorough job done on this task.  As such, we value quality of result 
over time.  While there is some pressure, we ask that the design team 
focus on reaching clear and useful agreements.  Thus, we are not asking 
for any readout by IETF 108.

If the design team makes enough progress that they have questions they 
would like the WG to discuss at IETF 108, please let us know.

Bruno, Jim, and Joel