Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 07:39:41 +0000

Linda,

Thanks for your review of the charter.

> From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email-masked]]

> IMHO, “Interworking between SR and Legacy Networks” is more appropriate than “Interworking between SR and existing routing solutions” because “Interworking SR with existing routing solutions” can imply needing changes to the “existing routing solutions”.

I’d favor “existing” for the following reasons:
- I’m not sure that Legacy is a well-defined term, nor that it is a binary condition
- I’d rather avoid a discussion about a technology been legacy. IMO, SR-LDP interwork is useful to incrementally deploy SR in existing LDP networks. And I’m happy to avoid discussionss about LDP been legacy or not.
- In the end, the goal is to introduce SR in existing networks (in addition to Greenfield deployments)
- I think that’s the option to modify existing routing solutions is a feature rather than a bug. If existing routing solutions may be modified, and if this is the easier/best path, I don’t think we should rule it out.

> How about “Interworking SR with existing networks”?
Regarding: “existing networks” vs “existing routing solutions”
Both equally works for me.
As the charter has now been sent to IESG, this is currently in Martin’s hand.

Thanks,
--Bruno

From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 5:26 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

How about “Interworking SR with existing networks”?

Linda

From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 10:20 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Linda,

“Legacy Networks” is a derogatory term used by OF bigots to call anything, that’s  distributed ☺
There’s nothing wrong with changing and evolving existing networking to be more programmable and flexible, changes are welcome.

I don’t think we should call existing networking – “Legacy”.

Cheers,
Jeff
From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:05
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Bruno,

IMHO, “Interworking between SR and Legacy Networks” is more appropriate than “Interworking between SR and existing routing solutions” because “Interworking SR with existing routing solutions” can imply needing changes to the “existing routing solutions”.

Linda

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Linda,

Thanks for the feedback.
Please see inline [Bruno]

From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 6:18 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; SPRING WG List
Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Bruno,

Many thanks for the updated charter. All look good except one minor wording change for the bullet:

You have:
o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS  and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence..

We think it should be:
o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS/LegacyNetwork  and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence..

Because it is very likely that flows might traverse some segment of legacy network (like IPv4) before reaching SRv6 domain. After all, it is not like to expect all network to be IPv6 from Day 1.

[Bruno] I though this point would be covered by Inter-working […] between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence
Am I missing something? Or would you have something specific in mind?

--Bruno

Sincerely hope you can add those minor wording to the bullet.

Linda Dunbar

From: spring [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:52 AM
To: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi SPRING,

Following the discussion on the mailing list, please find below the updated text.
The plan is to send it to Martin end of this week.

The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new applications, and specify extensions of Segment Routing technologies.

The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions called segments and without the need for per-path state information to be held at transit nodes. 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.

The scope of the SPRING WG work includes both single Autonomous System (AS) and multi-AS environments. Segment Routing operates within a trusted domain; as described in the architecture, a node imposing a segment list is assumed to be allowed to do so. Nonetheless, the SPRING WG must strive to identify and address security considerations brought up by the technologies it defines.
The technologies SPRING WG defines may be applicable to both centralised and distributed path computation.

SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any modification of -or extension to- existing architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, data plane, or control or management plane protocol being modified and in
coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors.

The SPRING WG will manage its specific work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.

The work-items of the SPRING WG include functional specifications for:
o Segment Routing policies and the associated steering, signalling and traffic engineering mechanisms.

o Source-routed stateless service chaining using SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

o SRv6 network programming for the underlay networks and overlay services, and including data plane behavior and functions associated with SIDs

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.

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.

o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS  and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence..

o new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior  (e.g. local ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing replication structure) if needed for new usages.

Any of the above may require architectural extensions.

The work-items of SPRING WG also include:
o Specification of management models (YANG) for Segment Routing applications, services and networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

The SPRING WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific
expected interactions include (but may not be limited to):
    * mpls on the MPLS dataplane and OAM extensions,
    * 6man on the IPv6 dataplane for SR and associated OAM extensions
    * lsr on OSPF and IS-IS extensions to flood SPRING-related information
    * IDR for BGP extensions
    * bess for VPN control plane
    * pce on extensions to communicate with an external entity to compute and program SPRING paths
    * teas on generic traffic engineering architecture
    * sfc on service chaining applications
    * rtgwg on fast-reroute technologies

Thanks,
Rob, Bruno

From: spring [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 6:06 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi SPRING,

After the discussions on the list and in London relating to the charter, Bruno and I have been working to propose a new charter for the WG with Martin, and the other routing ADs. The text for this suggested charter is below. We would like to solicit WG feedback on the charter text prior to Martin taking to the IESG. We'd like to try and get the charter agreed prior to IETF 102 in Montréal.

The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of
Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). SPRING WG serves as
a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new applications, and
specify extensions of Segment Routing technologies.

The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet through an
SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions called segments and
without the need for per-path state information to be held at transit nodes.
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.

The scope of the SPRING WG work includes both single Autonomous System (AS) and
multi-AS environments. Segment Routing operates within a trusted domain; as
described in the architecture, a node imposing a segment list is assumed to be
allowed to do so. Nonetheless, the SPRING WG must strive to identify and
address security considerations brought up by the technologies it defines.  The
technologies SPRING WG defines may be applicable to both centralised and
distributed path computation.

SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make
them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control
and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to
implement the SPRING function. Any modification of - or extension to - existing
architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be
carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, data plane, or control
or management plane protocol being modified and in coordination with the SPRING
WG, but may be done in SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WG
chairs and responsible Area Directors.

The SPRING WG will manage its specific work items by milestones agreed with the
responsible Area Director.

The work-items of the SPRING WG include functional specifications for:

o Segment Routing policies and the associated steering and traffic engineering
  mechanisms.

o Source-routed stateless service chaining using SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

o SRv6 network programming for the underlay networks and overlay services, and
  including data plane behavior and functions associated with SIDs

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.

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.

o The inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS.

o Using SR as the mechanism to identify sets of resources in networks with
  SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

Any of the above may require architectural extensions.

The work-items of SPRING WG also include:

o Specification of management models (YANG) for Segment Routing applications,
  services and networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

The SPRING WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific
expected interactions include (but may not be limited to):

    * mpls on the MPLS dataplane and OAM extensions,
    * 6man on the IPv6 dataplane for SR and associated OAM extensions
    * lsr on OSPF and IS-IS extensions to flood SPRING-related information
        * idr for BGP extensions
    * bess for VPN control plane
    * pce on extensions to communicate with an external entity to compute and program SPRING paths
    * teas on generic traffic engineering architecture

Please comment on the contents of the charter text on the list.

Thanks,
Bruno & Rob

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.