Dear All, I took Joel's suggestion. So, here is what I wanted to note: - I'd appreciate Chairs' clarification on what sounded as "if the design team decides that the SRv6 compression is only required, then we have to accept that". I believe that the document the DT will produce still be viewed and processed as an individual draft. - an then to members of the DT. I would appreciate listening to the comments of those who are outside the DT. Particularly, if outsiders express their thoughts, impression that the document is leaning towards one scenario and seems to overlook another, do not take a defensive position right away, engage in a discussion instead.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:32 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Weiqiang, members of the DT, > > thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important for > the further development of the SR project. Please find my notes and > questions below: > > - my first question is on the intended scope of the document. As I can > understand from the title, abstract, the scope is "the requirements for > solutions to compress SRv6 SID lists". When I compare that with what was in > the charter of the DT in the announcement by our chairs > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uL5cLEufipmlQQ_w3VZvb-pznd4/> > : > > ... the requirements for solutions to compressing segment routing > information for use over IPv6. > > Though the difference in texts might seems as small, the scopes they > identify differ significantly. To me, it seems as the scope of the draft is > targeted to only one possible solution to provide SR over IPv6 > functionality, the SRH. Does the DT plan to expand the scope of the draft > to match it to its charter? > > > - It appears that in order to qualify whether a proposed > compression method complies with the requirement in 3.1.2 an agreement by > the WG on the benchmarking method is required because metrics listed, in my > view, are platform-dependent. > - Though I can appreciate your consideration and using SHOULD in > requirement 3.1.3, I don't find it particularly important to be included in > the list. After all, it is a matter of the art of implementation. > - I think I cannot agree the SID summarization is the only viable > technique for the interdomain SR. Replacing MUST with SHOULD might be > reasonable, And preferably adding an informative text to describe > alternative methods to support the interdomain SR. > - I think I understand the intention of the requirement in Section > 4.2.1 but I may propose expressing it differently: > > A path traversed using a list of compressed SIDs MUST always be the same > as the path traversed using the list of uncompressed SIDs if no compression > was applied. > > > - I think that the use of MUST in requirement 5.1 is too strong. > Firstly, such compatibility is not essential in a greenfield scenario. > Secondly, the control plane based solution might be envisioned to > coordinate the interworking between SR domains using SRv6 and not using the > SRv6 technique. > > And in the conclusion, once again, many thanks to all the members of the > Design Team for the job well done. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:06 AM Weiqiang Cheng < > chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com> wrote: > >> Hi Group, >> As you know, the SPRING Working Group set up an SR compression design >> team prior to IETF108. >> The design team is to produce (rough) consensus (of the DT) outputs to >> the WG on two related topics: >> 1) What are the requirements for solutions to compressing segment routing >> information for use over IPv6; >> 2) A comparison of proposed approaches to compressing segment routing >> information for use over IPv6. >> >> With great effort of design team members, DT have finished the version >> -00 of the requirements document and have submitted it to datatracker. >> >> Please review it and let's know your comments. >> >> B.R. >> Weiqiang Cheng >> >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] >> 发送时间: 2020年11月2日 16:32 >> 收件人: Sander Steffann; SJM Steffann; Weiqiang Cheng >> 主题: New Version Notification for >> draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Weiqiang Cheng and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Compressed SRv6 SID List Requirements >> Document date: 2020-10-30 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 10 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement/ >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> This document specifies requirements for solutions to compress SRv6 >> SID lists. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
