Hi Aijun,
Thank you for the careful review. Both comments are
accepted and I will correct it in the next version.
The details are as below:
1) Agreed — "SRv6 Endpoint Function" is a leftover from an
earlier naming; both RFC 9352 Section 7.2 and RFC 9513 Section 8 name this
field "Endpoint Behavior". We will align the field descriptions in Sections 4.1
and 5.1 with the figures, which already use "Endpoint Behavior".
2) Agreed — I agree that the current text is ambiguous. Since the
SRv6 End SID sub-TLV may legitimately carry other sub-sub-TLVs (e.g., the SRv6
SID Structure sub-sub-TLV), we will label the trailing field in Figure 1 and
Figure 3 with its actual name ("Protected Locators sub-sub-TLV" / "Protected
Locators sub-TLV") rather than the generic plural, and clarify in Sections 4.2
and 5.2 that exactly one Protected Locators sub-(sub-)TLV is required while
other defined sub-(sub-)TLVs remain permitted.
Best Regards,
Tao He.
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Aijun Wang"<[email protected]>;
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2026 06:08 PM
To: "Acee Lindem"<[email protected]>; "lsr"<[email protected]>;
Cc: "rtgwg"<[email protected]>;
"draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp"<[email protected]>;
Subject: [Lsr] Re: [rtgwg] WG Adoption for "IGP Encoding for SRv6 Mirror
SID in Egress Protection" - draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp-encoding-01
【本邮件为外部邮件，请注意核实发件人身份，并谨慎处理邮件内容中的链接及附件】
Hi, All:
Support its adoption.
Some comments for the current document:
1) Should the "SRv6 Endpoint Function" be renamed as "Endpoint Behavior"? (Both
in IS-IS and OSPF extension parts)
2) The document says ".... .... the SRv6 End SID sub-TLV (RFC 9352 Section 7.2)
MUST include exactly one IS-IS Protected Locators sub-sub-TLV.", then, the
encapsulation in Figure 1, should be "sub-sub-TLV", not "sub-sub-TLVs"? If so,
Figure 3 should be updated also.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 11:37 PM
To: lsr <[email protected]>
Cc: rtgwg <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: [rtgwg] WG Adoption for "IGP Encoding for SRv6 Mirror SID in Egress
Protection" - draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp-encoding-01
LSR WG,
For some time now, the RTGWG has been working on the working group document
SRv6 Path Egress Protection - "draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-25".
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/
Recently, the IGP encodings for this SRv6 egress protection have been split out
into a separate LSR draft, "IGP Encoding for SRv6 Mirror SID in Egress
Protection" - draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp-encoding-01.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp-encoding/
We now intend to adopt this IGP encoding document "IGP Encoding for SRv6 Mirror
SID in Egress Protection" - draft-he-lsr-srv6-mirror-sid-igp-encoding-01, as an
LSR WG document so the RTGWG document can be progressed.
Please indicate your support or objection to adoption to this list by Tuesday,
September 15th, 2026.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
