Subject: Re: [spring] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-spring-01-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Rob Shakir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:12:23 -0700

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for reviewing the charter.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:01 PM Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> I'm balloting No Objection, but hope that people look at the SPRING/IPPM
> interaction I mentioned below. Otherwise, this is mostly editorial.
>
> I'm not sure who or what finds it advantageous to use loose routing in this
> text -
>
> "Full explicit control (through loose or strict
> path specification) can be achieved in a network comprising only SPRING
> nodes, however SPRING nodes must inter-operate through loose routing in
> existing networks and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for
> other network applications."
>
> I THINK the reference is to a SPRING node, which doesn't make a lot of
> sense to
> me, but I'm guessing.
>

The intention was that this is the SPRING node itself, but probably it is
more correct to say that this is the operator of the SPRING node. I think
we can probably lose the latter half of this sentence without negatively
impacting the intention of the charter here.

> Does everyone else know what "specificities" are meant here?
>
> "o Operation, Administration and Management (OAM), and traffic accounting
> in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR
> introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."
>
> and
>
> "o Performance Management (PM) and monitoring in networks with SR-MPLS
> and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities
> compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."
>

​​We deliberately did not enumerate what specific extensions would be
needed. The reason that we have this wording is that we're trying to
capture that since SPRING uses MPLS and IPv6 for its dataplanes, then
SPRING itself only need define new mechanisms for OAM or PM where the
mechanism is ONLY relevant when MPLS or IPv6 are being used per-SPRING,
rather than SPRING working on any extensions to MPLS/IPv6. We'd expect
MPLS/6man to handle anything that isn't specific to SPRING.

>
> On "Performance Management and monitoring", I note that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/ includes
> Segment
> Routing as one of its targeted encapsulations. IPPM is Mirja's working
> group as
> of about a month ago, but I'm wondering what the overlap might be. Is this
> something the two groups/ADs have talked about?
>

​We can discuss this with the IPPM chairs, and Mirja -- the work on PM in
SPRING is relatively nascent, so there is good opportunity for discussion
between the WGs. I don't recall this draft having ever been presented or
discussed in SPRING though, so it'd be good to have this collaboration be
bi-directional.

It might be less surprising to readers if the working group names under
>
> "Specific expected interactions"
>
> were capitalized.
>

​Sure.

Thanks,
r.​