Subject: The 6MAN WG has placed draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:05:31 -0700

The 6MAN WG has placed draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Ole Trøan)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam/

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 08:50:31 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
I have looked at the draft. A few questions:

Why would the draft be in 6man WG and not spring? Most of the content
in the draft seems specific to SRv6 as opposed to IPv6.

Section "3.5. SRH TLV" mentions that "SRH TLV plays an important role
in carrying OAM and Performance Management (PM) metadata." but there's
no mention of TLVs anywhere else in the draft and no references to a
spec defining any TLVs for OAM. What is the intent of this section?

One side comment. This draft creates a new ICMPv6 type for SRv6 OAM,
whereas draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-21 defines a new ICMPv6
Parameter Problem (type 4) code specific to segement routing in "SR
Upper-layer Header Error". IMO, this would be a lot cleaner if there
was just one new ICMPv6 type defined for all SRv6 errors and codes
within that are defined for these two cases and others that will be
needed for SRv6.

Tom

- The draft is
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------