I am not attempting to revisit the question of whether RFC 8986 complies
with RFC 4191.
This compression documents raises additional issues beyond those in 8986
in some aspects of the flavors it describes.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/31/2021 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Dear Joel,
If I may, I would like to pose a clarification question in respect to
the below announcement.
*What makes RFC8986 compliant with RFC4291 which
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression violaties ? *
Please kindly note that RFC8986 defines in sec 3.1 SID as LOC:FUNCT:ARG
The only recommendation it makes for ARG is following:
/ In such a case, the semantics and format of the ARG bits are defined
as part of the SRv6 Endpoint behavior specification.
The ARG value of a routed SID SHOULD remain constant among packets in
a given flow. Varying ARG values among packets in a flow may result
in different ECMP hashing and cause reordering.
/
On the other hand please kindly observe that
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression provides set of
semantics for ARG part of SID.
_So that means that it entirely builds on prior art of RFC 8986. _
That specific RFC went via many discussions and even appeal and was
considered compliant with IETF prior documents. Now is this your
judgement that the IETF process which led to standardization of SRv6
Network Programming was all fake and you can simply dismiss it ?
The answer to this question is important as vendors and operators are
investing in the technology especially when it comes out of IETF as
Standards Track formal RFC.
Kind regards,
Robert Raszuk
PS.
I think you have perhaps accidently violated the IETF process. And not
in regards to compression draft. But in respect to effectively asking
6man if RFC8986 is compliant to RFC4291 or not after it has been issued
and approved.
Because if it is draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression is
automatically compliant.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 4:36 PM Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
With apologies to the working group for the delay, this email formally
ends the adoption call that was announced at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-tvDZ5biRXvfLlyJ8IMtX-7EUp4/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-tvDZ5biRXvfLlyJ8IMtX-7EUp4/>
for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression
The conclusion is somewhat unusual, so please read carefully.
First, let me thank all of the working group participants for their
active and energetic participation in this call. That is what we need.
In terms of the rough consensus of the feedback we received, the rough
consensus of the working group is that we should adopt this document.
Due to process concerns, I am placing two caveats on this adoption, one
of which can be easily dealt with by the authors, and one of which will
cause some delay.
The SPRING working group chairs sent a policy statement last March
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/>
which calls attention to the issue of conflict between working group
efforts and existing PS or BCP RFCs. This policy applies to the
subject
document. It is my judgment that the issues raised regarding whether
this work complies with RFC 4291 require adherence to this policy.
As such, we need a draft in front of 6man (the responsible working
group
for RFC 4291) that addresses the raised disconnect.
fortunately, we have been told that the 6man chairs and area directors
are appointing authors for just such a document to address the issue of
the relationship of C-SIDs with RFC 4291.
Therefore, I will not be approving posting of the working group draft
until the author team has posted an initial take for 6man
consumption of
such a draft. Once they have posted that draft, I will approve posting
of a working group ID with the addition according to the next caveat.
As per the statement in the adoption call, as part of adoption the
document is required to have a section (an appendix seems the most
appropriate, but placement will be up to the editors) on open
issues. As
there is a lot of controversy about the open issues, and about how to
describe them, I am providing text (below) for that section. Once the
draft is posted as a working group draft, the working group will of
course own the text, and WG rough consensus can change the text. Also,
once we have a WG draft I will arrange to get an issue tracker to make
sure we keep track of all the issues, not just the major ones in the
open issues section of the document.
Expected text on Open Issues:
Open Issues:
Issues raised during and after the adoption call for this draft are
tracked in an issue tracker. The remainder of this section identifies
the most significant open issues, from the adoption call, for the
working group to keep track of.
As a reminder to those reading this section, this document is a work in
progress, and subject to change by the working group. As noted at the
front of this document, "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material"
o Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one
data plane solution, and given that the document contains multiple SRv6
EndPoint behaviors that some WG members have stated are multiple data
plane solutions, the working group will address whether this is valid
and coherent with its one data plane solution objective.
o As reminded in the conclusion of the adoption call, this document is
subject to the policy announced by the SPRING chairs in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/>.
In particular, this means that this document can not go to WG last call
until 6man completes handling of an Internet Draft that deals with the
relationship of C-SIDs to RFC 4291. It is hoped and expected that said
resolution will be a WG last call and document approval in 6man of a
document providing for the way that C-SIDs use the IPv6 destination
address field.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
