Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment

Speaking personally, my understanding of the "stateless" aspect of SR 
does not match what this email seems to describe.

SR is path stateless.  There is no state related to specific paths 
across the network.  Any SID may be used, if it has relevant meaning, in 
any path.

Advertising routers have internal state about what they mean when the 
advertise SIDs.

Transit rotuers have state about where to forward packets based on the 
current SID in the packet.

Binding SIDs have stored state about what stack of labels replace the 
binding SID at the advertising router.

All these forms of state are considered by the community, as far as I 
can tell, as acceptable and reasonable forms of state with SR.

Personally, it seems to me that replication SIDs have much the same 
kinds of state, and therefore fit well in the SR architecture.

Yours,

Joel

On 12/9/2022 11:53 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
>     It seems that the core value of segment routing is stateless (in 
> the core of a network). The document defines a new type of segment for 
> Segment Routing [RFC8402], called Replication segment. Using 
> Replication segment is not stateless. This is not consistent with the 
> core value of segment routing. I oppose the progress of the document.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of James Guichard 
> <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2022 10:10 AM
> *To:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* spring-chairs@ietf.org <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
>
> Dear WG:
>
> This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call for 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ 
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F&data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C385b4881095c41b2c27008dad152b258%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638052450396258660%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Xc85avPl8dZMqGuCSXAA6f89OTvRfQfQ6MGa9NCQnBE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Please read the updated document if you haven’t already and send your 
> comments to the SPRING WG list no later than December 12^th 2022.
>
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically 
> debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread 
> for this point.
>
> Lastly, if you are an author or contributor please respond to indicate 
> whether you know of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim, Joel & Bruno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring