Robert, as far as I can tell, no one other than you believes that "SRv6
should not be positioned as extension of IPv6 data plane." The SRH was
approved by 6man, whose only remit is the IPv6 data plane. Many
descriptions of SRv6 describe it as providing segment routing to IPv6.
And all SRv6 packets when carried on Ethernet use the IPv6 Ethertype.
By any measure I can see, SRv6 is part of IPv6. Just as SR-MPLS is part
of MPLS. It is relevant that SRv6 in my understanding changes the
forwarding behavior of IPv6, and C-SID changes it significantly more.
But that doe snot mean it is not an extension of IPv6.
More importantly in terms of the adoption call, the issue of the
relationship between C-SIDs and RFC 4291 was raised in such a way that I
concluded that even if I did not agree with the issue I would have to
recognize that it needed to be addressed.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/5/2021 2:46 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Dear Joel,
It is clear that your personal view of the relevance of SID ARG content
to IPv6 address differs from the view of many WG participants.
To be very clear - whatever SPRING WG decides to put into SID ARG field
it is completely orthogonal to IPv6 community as it has completely
nothing to do with IPv6 addressing architecture. That is based on
approved RFC 8986.
We can call it c-sid, sid++, sid/4, rainbow and I am sure the list will
grow with time. The entire concept of SRv6 NP is that the data plane
will also need to be programmable. And yes at segment endpoints to
properly process SRv6 packets plain IPv6 data plane support is not
sufficient. SRv6 data plane must be in place.
I think looking from the beginning of this discussions to me it is
obvious that SRv6 should not be positioned as extension of IPv6 data
plane. To me this is new data plane however made in a
backwards compatible way with IPv6 for the transit nodes.
Kind regards,
Robert
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:39 PM Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Darren, while I appreciate your requests, I must decline both requests.
On he first request, the bullet is derived from the stated SPRING
chairs
policy, as was announced to the working group and is cited in the
adoption conclusion. It is not reliant on the charter item, the
question I asked 6man about the charter item, nor the answer that 6man
provided.
On the second, the issue for holding up posting of the adopted document
(and potentially holding up last call on the document, assuming as I do
that we will get that far), is about this document. Which is about
C-SIDs. If 6man chooses to address the larger SID question in their
document, that is their call. Our dependence is on the C-SID part of
that. I have been told C-SID will be dealt with in that. In the
unlikely event that no document dealing with the relationship of C-SIDs
to RFC 4291 appears, then we will work out how to get one, as that is
what we need to advance work on this compression document.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/5/2021 10:17 AM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
> Hello Joel,
>
> I want to make note of two suggestions, I’m copying the list for
record
> keeping only.
>
> 1 – The second bullet (beginning with “As reminded”) should
include the
> link to the questions asked of the 6man chairs/ADs
>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/merG-RgtA3shloDqpyRk-xWHniw/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/merG-RgtA3shloDqpyRk-xWHniw/>
>
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/merG-RgtA3shloDqpyRk-xWHniw/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/merG-RgtA3shloDqpyRk-xWHniw/>>
and
> their response
>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/z_3nbdwVQ_V66ZqkV-ZhIg7kakA/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/z_3nbdwVQ_V66ZqkV-ZhIg7kakA/>
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3k8_1JgKGtnLsfsVf65qvReNuLc/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3k8_1JgKGtnLsfsVf65qvReNuLc/>>
>
> 2 – About the requirements for a document identifying the
“relationship
> of C-SIDs with RFC 4291.”. The word “C-SIDs” should be changed
to “SRv6
> SIDs” in the sentences when such a document is discussed. This
would
> better match the 6man chairs/ADs response:
>
> “To summarize: we do not object to C-SID behavior work continuing in
> SPRING, we simply need a clarifying document described in [A].”
>
> And
>
> “[A] A separate 6MAN document to clarify and categorize SRv6 SIDs is
> needed.”
>
> Thanks
>
> Darren
>
> On 2021-10-31, 11:37 AM, "spring" <[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/><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/><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/><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><https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>>
>
_______________________________________________
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
