Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-simple-sr-00.txt

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:16:29 -0700

Hello,

I have posted a new draft that describes a simple segment routing
header. This incorporates and generalizes some of the ideas in
draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr and
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt. Most notably,
options (TLVs) in the Segment Routing header are eliminated (as
previously discussed Destination Options preceding the Routing header
should be sufficient), and the segment list can contain identifiers
other than full IPv6 addresses (with the benefit of reducing header
overhead).

Note that one of the segment identifier types is IPv4, so if this
draft is combined with draft-herbert-ipv4-udpencap-eh-01 then
there is a path to define segment routing for IPv4 (i.e. SRv4).

Comments are appreciated.

Thanks,
Tom

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:02 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-simple-sr-00.txt
To: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-simple-sr-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-herbert-simple-sr
Revision:       00
Title:          Simple Segment Routing Header
Document date:  2019-03-11
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          10
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-herbert-simple-sr-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-simple-sr/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-simple-sr-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-herbert-simple-sr

Abstract:
   This specification defines a simple extension header format for
   Segment Routing based on the current definition of the Segment
   Routing extension header defined for IPv6. A Segment Identifier type
   field is added so that the segment list might contain values other
   than IPv6 addresses. Optional TLVs in the segment routing header are
   eliminated; Destination options that precede the routing header are
   sufficient. Two new destination options are defined: one for Routing
   header security and another to specify that certain destinations
   should process certain options.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat