IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Status] Status of Spring

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 10 October 2013 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA96121E816B for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LEH7JGssAsc for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DDF21F90E5 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9AMwFLI056134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:58:16 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4AAE889-8CFE-41F7-940B-2688FFB94B05"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209913009@dfweml513-mbb.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:58:10 -0700
Message-Id: <D29A251D-1C48-4521-93B8-F6C974B6232D@bogus.com>
References: <52569169.20404@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERmj13sz4yi+aQXwGKuu7boOKkz6CbcB9pYXqHV-_FMhSw@mail.gmail.com> <5256F76D.9080905@cisco.com> <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209913009@dfweml513-mbb.china.huawei.com>
To: AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu>, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "status@ietf.org" <status@ietf.org>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Status] Status of Spring
X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <status.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/status>
List-Post: <mailto:status@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:58:28 -0000

On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:31 PM, AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com> wrote:

> I can understand the concern. Making a new option for V6 exposes it to misuse by the endpoints as was previously the case for v4.

as was previously the case for ipv6 as well.

sleeping dragons aren't safe dragons.

> What is wrong with an approach that is MPLS first and then an evolution of MPLS? That would work for IPV6/V4 or whatever else goes on top.
> 
> I mean is it heresy to suggest that we should evolve MPLS in the future? 
> 
> Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: status-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:status-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:52 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel; status@ietf.org
> Cc: Joel Jaeggli; Benoit Claise; Jari Arkko; John G. Scudder; Alvaro Retana
> Subject: [Status] Status of Spring
> 
> 
> The SPRING charter was discussed on the telechat today. We have
> a small issue with the OAM and management deliverable text that
> I am working with Benoit.
> 
> The largest sticking point is the IPv6 text, where a number of
> ADs are concerned that given the previous security issues with
> source routing, they are concerned at the difficulty we face
> significant difficulty designing a satisfactory IPv6 solution.
> There was some discussion on the call about limited network
> scope, but concern was expressed that once the feature was
> in the wild, the scope would be difficult to control.
> 
> Jari who is the main discuss holder will work with us over
> the next couple of days to try to get some text that will allow
> us to go forward. The goal is to get the charter into external
> review by Monday night so it can go to external review
> on Tuesday and be on the following telechat for approval
> by Vancouver.
> 
> Currently SPRING is of course a BOF and I have asked Alvaro
> Retana, and John Scudder to chair the BOF in Vanouver.
> 
> If the charter text still has unresolved issues by the time
> we meet in Vancouver, then they should be the first
> priority on the agenda.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> status mailing list
> status@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email