Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 10 December 2019 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF16120A1C; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQGQkdsiYzqb; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 081DF1209D4; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r11so7778993pjp.12; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tHcnVBj+XiwJzOYA7FGmkBQ7pBOwjEoT4TYLGEdWkhU=; b=O/S4l9pDT7AqfqTvLugxZrzm7UegqgXRmOyORG2bWuVQorlQfyAK+aNpvhl3On5utv ks0xB1dsEuIm6tK0mw9VApNHUA7M1Y5/cFEWdDCk5wXaTrWSIvaXeH7d9lg0vJIDyB8r zP9pjRLGzRD9hJw5EokaOcdkTqCsbbOwxsUhBJVPXYOO0bZWbdCJi8PEIg64tjxWTNah UCY/uMczPJqJkY14piuh8DrpXboMSqAxfys0MMm190XSRrbdfKzxBDzUfmJHcRb/MZmE AxHVtxl4rhg4nwEymKxT6kurC8YZ4srp9vbjLWp/xrSK7I+osT5sKE0cm3vOmlDM4Srz MIyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tHcnVBj+XiwJzOYA7FGmkBQ7pBOwjEoT4TYLGEdWkhU=; b=nrqyoTCpvCzHO6dSllg8/MbsMfIAotWVL0fdzIJUVk3RYmxNUDKOLO88EPH3VsN2tf d+UwlMG9gcbprR4+gxSuKIDVKQUPwJXPALKn7GU9nGYgcVOe/paoYaeqLVTm5Lg1jrRB LPk9zJfKRL6L+nTodLcXt9ooInVle82Nib0S6Rlo9KuAFQvLHWzXnr6XYaw3++iHXmQv x7Zbi1JOHSdjQOnHCMr3Yo8q2ZQne/Krzb/QMPS14B/QQs3kfnCTfnp7oSeFHV8CYCbu 8ZMlhYxaU/eZiymxDriDR+/YsozKCLi2Xn+/FTN+YrrGZ3dshC7FoAlWdfB2e++z9mbd PKgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUV7SInipORzxpkOLT2UZwMmoHs/SvBV6PAyaNmxxu35rs2l4Tc 5c4s1XBhBqGDx1GviNQOjS4gp5EI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyfB6UaXOBk7StGnp3cHpyw7GrrNS4+KIRX4vmaqxWByOopsl3AMC7fT+NtOjgB6uSSxdR+zQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ff12:: with SMTP id ce18mr7266634pjb.117.1576006591052; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y76sm4660065pfc.87.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:30 -0800 (PST)
To:, Fernando Gont <>
Cc: Ron Bonica <>, "" <>, "" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <1824_1575998223_5DEFD30F_1824_112_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D24EBD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:36:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1824_1575998223_5DEFD30F_1824_112_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D24EBD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:36:35 -0000


On 11-Dec-19 06:17, wrote:
> Fernando,
>> From: Fernando Gont [] 
>> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 9:54 PM
>> On 5/9/19 09:46, wrote:
>> [....]
>>>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
>>>> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
>>>> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
>>>> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
>>>> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
>>>> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
>>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference
>>> to [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] 
>>>  As such, from a process standpoint, it would not going to be
>>> published before [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] be
>>> itself published as RFC. And from its name, the latter is intended to
>>> be discussed and within control of the 6MAN WG. So I don't think that
>>> we can say that it "just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" button
>>> pressed."
>> Yes, it is just relying on that.
> Situation has changed since this email: the network programming draft has now removed text related to SRH insertion.
> Please comment on the text if you see text related to SRH insertion.

For example:

Why would draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion exists if the SRH proponents do not intend to perform SRH insertion?


>> A question of you as a chair: does the wg you chair publish documents
>> based on current specs (or at the very least based on  changes that are
>> going to happen in the near term as a result of *existing and proven
>> consensus*), or does spring ship documents that implicitly betting on
>> changes that have no consensus?
> In general, I don't see the benefit of sending a draft which we expect would never progress to RFC. So this would not be my preferred path.
> However, I guess that as always, there are exceptions and I'm not a priori aware of a process forbidding this. As of today, I'd rather not spend time on this hypothetical case.
>> The former is how I expect WGs to operate. The later shows a clear path
>> to a huge pile of documents stuck at IESG review, simply because so
>> later in the process folks found out that the document turns out to
>> violate existing specs. With the risk of an AD pressing "YES", and hence
>> IETF has been circumvented.
> While IESG processing is beyond my paycheck (literally ;-) ), I trust the IESG. And I don't see a reason to doubt a priori.
> And even in this case, there may be a possibly to fetch back the document from the RFC editor queue.
> In short: very hypothetic case and beyond my hat. As of today, I'd propose that we work on the text of the document.
> Thank you,
> --Bruno
>> Thanks,
>> -- 
>> Fernando Gont
>> e-mail: ||
>> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------