Subject: [spring] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:00:20 -0800

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I find myself rather unsatisfied by 

   The SPRING architecture SHOULD leverage the existing MPLS dataplane
   without any modification and leverage IPv6 dataplane with a new IPv6
   Routing Header Type (IPv6 Routing Header is defined in [RFC2460]).

in that the prospects for use of a new routing header, and ipv6
router/extension header treatment  seem poor. and the potential
consequences for chaining these for example seem worth exploring before
electing that course of action.

---

From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:19:20 +0000

On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> router/extension header treatment  seem poor.

well, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header describes a new routing header type for SR and,btw, there are already multiple interoperable implementations.

The statement above only reflects what has been already carried out.

s.

> and the potential