Subject: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:50:35 +0000

Hi all,

There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support for the Flow Label in
Soon to be RFC 6434 <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt> As a straw man proposal, if we add
Support, I would suggest the following text:

All nodes SHOULD support RFC 6437, IPv6 Flow Label Specification, 
defines the IPv6 Flow Label.  Specifically:
 
    "Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
      depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. "
 
    "It is therefore RECOMMENDED  that source hosts support the flow 
      label by setting the flow label field for all packets of a given flow to the 
      same value chosen from  an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution. "

I'd like to ask the wg the following:

1) Is the above text acceptable?
2) Do you support adding the text? If no, please suggest text, unless you do not support adding
     Flow label support at all (please say so).

John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:04:26 +1300

I support this (and the proposed text), as long as it doesn't cause
more than three or four weeks' delay.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-11-03 15:50, [email-masked] wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:53:45 +0000

I support this action and the proposed text.

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:47:19 -0400

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> ... I would suggest the following text:
>> 
>>   label by setting the flow label field for all packets of a given
>>   flow to the same value chosen from an approximation to a discrete
>>   uniform distribution. "
> 

   The language feels right for a de-novo -bis.

   OTOH, it strikes me as going well beyond an AUTH48 change.

   Given IETF week, I personally doubt this big a change can be
accomplished in four weeks -- but that's a question for Jari, not me.

   I'd also support a lesser change, merely an Informative ref, just
pointing out the new RFC (which I _would_ have the nerve to ask for
as an AUTH49 change).

   Either way, I hope that a -ter becomes a milestone not more than
12-18 months from now. (If done soon enough, it shouldn't be that
hard!)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:00:16 -0400

John,

This should not be a surprising or controversial change to the
node-requirements document. The WG made the decision earlier that we'd
leave out a reference to the Flow Label work because we didn't want to
have node-requirements block waiting for it, but we would revisit if
that work finished in time.

It has.

We should just make this change. There was never any doubt that node
requirements would point to the updated Flow Label RFC.

If we say "do it later, when we rev the document again", we should be
realistic in that that probably won't happen for at least another year
and probably more like 2+ years.

Thomas

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 19:59:54 -0400

> requirements would point to the updated Flow Label RFC.

   Alas, there was no mention of this in the document.

   And, the document is no longer under our control. It has gone
through IETF LastCall, also with no mention of an intent to point to
an updated Flow Label RFC.

   And, I quite agree, it would be a better document if it did point
to an updated Flow Label RFC.

   I agree with most of what Thomas says: but I agree more with Brian
Carpenter: it's not worth holding up this document for two (or more)
months to add this.

   Beyond that (though I soft-pedaled it) I believe there's rather
little chance of the proposed text breezing through in less than
four weeks.

   And personally, I see more value in getting out the document as
it stands quickly than in adding much of anything about Flow Labels.

> and probably more like 2+ years.

   IMHO, we should commit to revising well within two years whether or
not we add language about Flow Labels. I wish we already had language
about Flow Labels in there; but I would still believe we shouldn't
let the next rev drag on for two or more years: now is the time folks
are working on implementing and deploying IPv6, and all indications
are that such work will continue for a few years, at the same time
details of the various pieces of protocols are evolving. IMHO, a
road-map document is critically important, while a many-year-old
road-map document can actually detract.

   Also IMHO, Flow Label remains mostly unused, and of the pieces,
it's perhaps best able to wait for inclusion in a road-map.

   Now, something about process...

   Thomas certainly knows that to add the text in question, an AD
is likely to tell us to recycle the document back to a WG LastCall.
I happen to believe that's _very_ likely. And I listen in on the
IESG telechats: I recommend to your perusal the Narrative Minutes

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2011/narrative-minutes-2011-07-14.html

where this document was discussed. Recycling this doesn't feel like
a slam-dunk at the IESG to me.

   I'm sure either Ralph Droms or Jari Arkko would allow the document
to go back to the WG from AUTH48; I'm not sure either of them would
look forward to its next trip through IESG, and I frankly don't see
how either of them could say the proposed text doesn't deserve a
recycle. That's why I suggested a minimal change, merely an
Informational Reference to a document recently published, with no
claims about what it says. Please _read_ the Narrative Minutes
before you ridicule me for this belief.

  If it does recycle, IMHO, we'll be asked to respond to a raft of
comments by IESG members the first time around (and there were more
than are shown in the Narrative Minutes). Frankly, I believe we
could get a -ter document out about as fast as we could recycle
this one.

   Thus, though I'm supportive of the text in question, I believe
it's better tactics to schedule a milestone to include it in a -ter
document.

   I'm nearly certain that our responsible AD (Jari) would have to
rule on either the change in wording or a milestone update: I'm
more optimistic about a ruling in favor of adding a milestone.
(And even if Jari agreed such a change doesn't require recycling,
the RFC Editor would also have to agree, which is by no means a
sure thing.)

   We're facing two separate questions here:
- whether we like the wording for a road-map document; and
- how long we're willing to hold up this document to get the change.

   I'm perfectly happy to be in the rough here; but I'm not happy
holding up this document at all, nor do I believe four weeks to
be a reasonable expectation if we insist on changing this
document. If we really choose to insist on this late change even
if it takes two or three months, so be it!

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:37:07 -0600

> requirements would point to the updated Flow Label RFC.

I completely agree.  We should make the change now.

-shane

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:32:04 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Amante" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF IPv6 Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document

> I completely agree.  We should make the change now.

Yes, make the change now.  Planning on yet another revision is just confirming
the impression that people get that IPv6 is not yet ready, will still be being
tinkered with in two years time, so don't invest in it yet.  Honest, I think
that the tinkeritis that has kept the IPv6 revision industry busy for 15 years
is a major bar to progress.  Sometime we must stop and say, just do it.

Tom Petch

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:00:10 -0800

This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding text and a reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" to the Node Requirements bis document current in AUTH48 state.  The document is currently on hold in the RFC Editor waiting for resolution of this issue.  

>     same value chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution. "

The chairs have discussed this with the Internet Area Directors and they recommended this course of action.  This topic is also on the agenda for the 6man session at the Taipei IETF.

Substantive comments and statements of support for taking this action should be sent to the mailing list.  This last call will end on November 17, 2011.

Regards,
Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <[email-masked]>
> Date: November 2, 2011 7:50:35 PM PDT
> To: <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:53:29 +1300

I support this change.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:25:47 -0500

I agree that an update should be done prior to publishing the Node 
Requirements draft, but I have some issues with the language (not the 
intent) proposed below...

On 11/2/11 10:50 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Soon to be RFC 6434<draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt>  As a straw man proposal, if we add

First, I propose that the text be added to section 5.1, which discusses 
the specifications that must be supported at the IPv6 layer.  Second, I 
would modify the text proposed to clean up the introductory component as 
follows:

      All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow
      Label field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification
      [RFC6437].  Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors
      MUST NOT depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly
      distributed.  It is RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow
      label by setting the Flow Label field for all packets of a given
      flow to the same value chosen from an approximation to a discrete
      uniform distribution.

Regards,
Brian (who is not wearing any hats at this time)

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:13:24 -0700

> I support this change.

+1.

-shane

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:07:01 +0000

Agree.

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:49:36 -0500

support

Thanks,

Wes

> Bob Hinden
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:00 PM
> To: 6man Mailing List
> Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Working Group last call for adding RFC6437 Flow Label support
> to Node Requirements bis document
>
> This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding
> text and a reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" to the
> Node Requirements bis document current in AUTH48 state.  The document
> is currently on hold in the RFC Editor waiting for resolution of this
> issue.
>
> flow to the
> The chairs have discussed this with the Internet Area Directors and
> they recommended this course of action.  This topic is also on the
> agenda for the 6man session at the Taipei IETF.
>
> Substantive comments and statements of support for taking this action
> should be sent to the mailing list.  This last call will end on
> November 17, 2011.
>
> Regards,
> > There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support
> > for the Flow Label in Soon to be RFC 6434
> > <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt> As a straw man proposal, if we
> add Support, I would suggest the following text:
> >
> flow to the

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.