Liaison statement
LS/r on Technical Report QSTR.SRv6_conf “Method for verifying conformance to segment routing over IPv6 " (reply to IETF SRv6OPS-LS1, IETFSRv6OPS-LS2)

NOTE:  This liaison if for Action to SRv6OPS and for Information to BMWG.

Incoming Liaison Text:

ITU-T Study Group 11 would like to thank IETF SRv6OPS for your comprehensive
liaison statement regarding our new work item QSTR.SRv6_conf "Method for
Verifying Conformance to SRv6".

ITU-T SG11 acknowledges your understanding that our draft Technical Report does
not aim to alter any SRv6 specifications. ITU-T SG11 is committed to ensuring
the accuracy and technical alignment of our work item QSTR. SRv6_conf with IETF
SRv6 standards. Therefore, this clause has been explicitly added to the draft
Technical Report (Ref: Section-1 and Section-9 of QSTR.SRv6_Conf).

Regarding the specific points raised in your liaison statement:

- ITU-T SG11 notes your clarification that the IETF does not identify a subset
of SRv6-related specifications as "Core SRv6 Standards," and we have
acknowledged this is a classification specific to ITU-T SG11. We have addressed
this categorization in our ongoing work (Ref: Section-1 and Section-8 of
QSTR.SRv6_Conf)

- ITU-T SG11 appreciates the corrections regarding the applicability of certain
RFCs (e.g., RFC 8665, RFC 8666, and RFC 8667) which apply to SR-MPLS rather
than SRv6, and that some RFCs (e.g., RFC 9256) apply to both. We have reviewed
the listed RFCs and corrected their applicability and names as identified (Ref:
Section-2 and Section-8 of QSTR.SRv6_Conf)

- ITU-T SG11 has taken note of your recommendation to provide specific
references to sections and text from RFCs when referring to aspects as
"mandatory" or "optional". We understand this approach is crucial to avoid
misalignment with IETF standards, as highlighted by the example of "Packet
Tagging and Tag Processing" in RFC 8754. We have ensured that the updated
technical report reflects this precise referencing to address the noted
misalignments. (Ref: Section-8.2 and Table 8.2 of QSTR.SRv6_Conf)

- ITU-T SG11 acknowledge that while IETF BMWG specifications aim for better
interoperability, the IETF does not produce formal conformance test suites. We
are, however, very interested in the ongoing work by your Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group  on an SR-related benchmarking methodology
specification. We have also reviewed IETF’s draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-05
and provided our analysis in Table 7.1 of QSTR.SRv6_Conf

ITU-T SG11 welcomes further collaboration on these matters. We will encourage
experts who are interested in this matter to utilize the BMWG mailing list for
discussions related to SR benchmarking methodology, and the specific WG mailing
lists for questions pertaining to particular SRv6-related specifications.

ITU-T SG11 also seeks feedback from IETF SRv6OPS and BMWG on the overall draft
Technical Report, including Test Requirements, Test Methodologies, Expected
Results, and their applicability.

ITU-T SG11 believes that continued close liaison between our Study Group and
relevant IETF WGs is essential for the successful development of QSTR.SRv6_conf
and for promoting SRv6 technology.