Hi Ron That is a very crucial point that the DT was chartered to provide input data to the WG.
Many thanks for the clarifications for me as well as maybe others in the WG from today’s DT update. I am in sync and fully agree with the tasks you have laid out. Responses in-line Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:15 PM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Gyan, > > > > The design team was not chartered to select a winner. It was chartered to > provide input to the WG. > > > > AFAIKS, the WG still has the following tasks before it: > > > > - To determine whether the all candidate solutions are compliant with > existing BCP and PS drafts (particularly RFC 4291) > - To determine whether zero, one, or more candidate solutions should > be advanced > - To determine which requirements are significant with regard to > candidate advancement > > Gyan> Agreed. Maybe an assignment of a weight or priorities to the > requirements. > > Recall that the DT did not poll operators for requirements. > Gyan> Yes > They documented requirements as they understood them. > Gyan> Understood > Therefore, requirements may be skewed, reflecting the composition of the > design team more than the requirements of the larger community. > Gyan> Understood > Note: 5 of 7 design team members were co-authors of the CSID, GSID, or > uSID documents. > Gyan> Understood > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* spring <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra > *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2021 7:51 PM > *To:* Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > > > Dear DT, > > > > Excellent work and many thanks to the design team to come provide the > detailed analysis of the 4 proposals and how they match up with the > requirements. > > > > From the analysis it does sound like CSID is the choice by the DT. > > > > SRv6 compression & MSD issue is now finally solved! Excellent news!! > > > > Now it’s just a matter of moving forward with CSID Adoption poll. > > > > From the analysis it does not seem there is any draft that is in close 2nd > place or a close call. > > > > From the analysis draft the two drafts that are combined to create CSID -> > I don’t see it on the Spring WG Datatracker? > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2yTHP0N$> > > > > The following mechanisms are proposed to compress the SRv6 SID list: > > > > o CSID - [I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rjxe7S708$>] > - Describes > > two new SRv6 SID flavors, a combination of SID flavors from > > [I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2yEaZI-$>] > and > > [I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj_ClpaL9$>] > > o CRH - [I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj-KHFlCz$>] > - Requires two new routing > > header types and a label mapping technique. > > o VSID - [I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2CTgfb0$>] > - Defines a set of SID > > behaviors to access smaller SIDs within the SR header. > > o UIDSR - [I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj9m08qUr$>] > - Extends the SRH to carry > > MPLS labels or IPv6 addresses. > > > > > > Below 2 drafts are combined to create CSID?? > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj5MZ6N5p$> > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj6gvuXDE$> > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Gyan > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:53 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes= > [email protected]> wrote: > > I’ll paraphrase what I said in the call... > > > > Today the design team presented analysis of proposals to compress an SRv6 > SID list. > > They spent a year building the requirements and completing the analysis, > in depth, with unanimous consensus. > > The CSID proposal satisfied all the requirements to the largest degree of > any proposal. > > That proposal has multiple implementations, and interoperability, noted in > the draft. > > That proposal has a large set of SPRING participants working on it already. > > > > The problem of SRv6 SID list compression is solved, CSID is ready for > adoption. > > > > I hope we can conclude this, and choose a single proposal for WG adoption. > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj5zQiccg$> > > -- > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rjwQFrDmj$> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
