Re: [v6ops] Call for adoption: draft-peng-v6ops-hbh

Dear Brian, 

Many thanks for your support and those comments. 

I will reply to Gorry separately. 

Thank you! 

Best regards, 
Shuping 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 5:38 AM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for adoption: draft-peng-v6ops-hbh

Hi Shuping,

Thanks. I think that Gorry Fairhurst's comments express exactly what I want to say. I support adoption, subject to those comments.

Regards
   Brian

On 11-Sep-21 16:00, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> 
> Our main purpose of this work, as we presented in the IETF meetings, 
> is
to ultimately 
> 1. Break the endless cycle that resulted in HBH to become a DOS vector.
> 2. Enable the HBH options header to be utilized in a safe/secure way without impacting the management plane.
> 3. Ease the deployments of the new HBH based network services in a multi-vendor/operator’s scenario that can now be deployed without operational impact.
> 
> This document acts as a requirement document and not a solution document so the purpose is to describe the current state and what needs to be fixed.
> 
> As you pointed out, we agree that the purpose is not very clear now, 
> we
will extend the introduction section that currently has a small paragraph on the purpose of this draft, and add more information to make it more clear. It will also be reflected in the abstract. 
> 
> Thank you for your comments to help us to improve the draft.
> 
> Best regards,
> Shuping
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E 
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 5:09 AM
>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for adoption: draft-peng-v6ops-hbh
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand at all what this draft proposes. To be explicit:
>>
>>>  8. Migration Strategies
>>
>> Migration from what to what?
>>
>>> 1. The source of the HBH options header encapsulation.The 
>>> information
to
>> be carried in the HBH options header needs to be first categorized 
>> and encapsulated into either control options or forwarding options, 
>> and then encapsulated in different packets.
>> ...
>>> The edge nodes should check whether the packet contains an HBH 
>>> header
>> with control or forwarding option.
>> What different packets? How are control and forwarding options 
>> distinguished? Is this proposal suggesting two kinds of HBH option? 
>> If
so it
>> belongs in 6man. If not, I have no idea what it actually suggests.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>>
>> On 10-Sep-21 05:10, Ron Bonica wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message initiates a call for adoption for draft-peng-v6ops-hbh
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh/
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh/>).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please post comments by September 24, 2021.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>                   Fred and Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops