Skip to main content

Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pcamaril@cisco.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding (CSID)'
  (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-23.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is the instantiation of Segment
   Routing (SR) on the IPv6 dataplane.  This document specifies new
   flavors for the SRv6 endpoint behaviors defined in RFC 8986, which
   enable the compression of an SRv6 SID list.  Such compression
   significantly reduces the size of the SRv6 encapsulation needed to
   steer packets over long segment lists.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

The technology described in this document has already seen broad deployment in production networks by multiple early adopters. There have, however, been rough discussions centered on how the SRv6 endpoint behaviors specified herein relate to certain requirements described in RFC 8200.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Multiple existing and deployed implementations exist, spanning routing vendors, merchant silicon vendors, and open-source projects. Various industry interoperability events have taken place over the years with multiple vendors and implementations.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Pablo Camarillo. The
   Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

RFC Editor Note