Thanks for responding, Yingzhen.
To be clear about my position… 1. I think this is something the IETF should look at 2. I am far from convinced that RTGWG is the right place to consider most of this topic. I believe that the capabilities advertisement work could belong in the Routing Area, but only after the use cases, requirements, and GIP6 encapsulation have been progressed in the Internet Area. 3. I think that at least 50% of this document should not be adopted into RTGWG at any time. Adopting the current document would be a bad idea. Thanks, Adrian From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Sent: 29 June 2025 21:44 To: [email protected] Cc: RTGWG <[email protected]>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: [rtgwg] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements Hi Adrian, Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that draft-li-rtgwg-generalized-ipv6-tunnel belongs to the INT area (the authors were suggested so a while back), and issues related with IPv6 extension headers should be discussed in the INT area as well. However, it's useful to discuss some use cases and requirements in RTGWG as well, that's why the adoption call says "Supporting means that you believe that the WG should work on this topic and the draft is on the right track". The normative reference to draft-li-rtgwg-generalized-ipv6-tunnel should be removed as we don't want to "prejudge acceptance" of any draft. As indicated from the poll when the draft was last presented, there was some support of this draft, and the chairs want to get a clear understanding of the WG opinion through this adoption call. Your statement, "So, in its current form, I don’t think this belongs in RTGWG." is well taken. Hi RTGWG, "Support" means that you believe the WG should work on the use cases and requirements, and that the document is ready for adoption—i.e., while some changes may still be needed, you are generally comfortable with the majority of its content. If you think the WG should work on the use cases and requirements but that the document requires more significant revision and is not yet ready for adoption, please make that clear in your response. Thanks, Yingzhen On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 3:54 AM Adrian Farrel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hi Yingzhen, This draft seems to be entwined with draft-li-rtgwg-generalized-ipv6-tunnel. But there is more going on. The draft is describing many things: * Some of these issues clearly belong to the INT Area * Describing the problem space * Use-cases, issues, and problems with integrating IPv6 and legacy technologies * Use-cases, issues, and problems with non-support of Ipv6 extension header * Requirements and architecture for a generalized IPv6 tunneling approach * The requirements fall out of the use-cases * The architecture is mainly missing from this document * The tunnelling mechanism * This is assumed to be defined in draft-li-rtgwg-generalized-ipv6-tunnel which is a normative reference. But: * That draft is not yet adopted, so adopting *this* document with a normative reference would prejudge acceptance of that draft. * Surely IPv6 encapsulation mechanisms belong to INT * Some of the work might belong to RTG. Specifically: * Section 4 describes possible routing approaches to collect capability information. However: * If the information is needed to support GIP6 tunneling, then it is premature to work on it before the encapsulation is agreed. * If the information is just to exchange IPv6 capabilities, then there is a big routing architecture question lurking. That is, will hop-by-hop routing decisions be made based on per-node support for extension headers, or is this work intended only for “programmed paths” such as SRv6? So, in its current form, I don’t think this belongs in RTGWG.. I think it would help everyone in considering this adoption poll if the chairs could explain how they think this fits within the charter of RTGWG. Thanks, Adrian From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 28 June 2025 00:50 To: RTGWG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [rtgwg] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements Dear RTGWG, This email starts a Working Group Adoption call for: Scenarios and Protocol Extension Requirements of a Generalized IPv6 Tunnel https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements/ The draft was presented at IETF122, and a poll was done after the presentation: Poll for "Should the WG work on a general tunneling mechanism that supports iOAM etc.?" Yes(24) No(11) No Opinion(7) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-rtgwg-202503200230/ Please review the document and send your support or objection to the mailing list. Supporting means that you believe that the WG should work on this topic and the draft is on the right track. Comments and suggestions are welcome. The adoption call will run for three weeks considering the upcoming IETF and end on July 18th. Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
