Hi Adrian, (Speaking as a co-author) Thanks for your comments on the draft, and I’m glad to hear that you thought the community should look at this work. Pardon for chiming in the dialogue, some clarification: “This draft seems to be entwined with draft-li-rtgwg-generalized-ipv6-tunnel.” We used to have a series of drafts of this topic, covering scenarios/requirements and solutions. But in last couple of IETFs, we decided to focus on the scenarios/requirements first, so we heavily revised the current draft which is under adoption call, to make it more like a standalone problem statement, decoupling with the GIP6 encapsulation design. “I am far from convinced that RTGWG is the right place to consider most of this topic” This whole topic is actually a “comprehensive” issue, which could not be easily fit into a single WG/Area. But if we think about the first step, e.g. explaining why we need to work on this, we’d have to choose a place. Considering the background (scenarios using legacy tech such as GRE/VxLAN/L2TP etc.), and the gap (to support new routing tech like slicing/srv6), we just thought RTGWG should be the first place. So, may I ask how you think we should revise the draft to more closely fit into RTGWG’s scope? Thanks again for your feedback. B.R. Xinxin
From: Adrian Farrel Date: 2025-06-29 18:54 To: 'Yingzhen Qu' CC: 'RTGWG'; 'rtgwg-chairs' Subject: [rtgwg] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements 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 <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Sent: 28 June 2025 00:50 To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org> 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 -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
