Hi WG, I support the adoption of this draft. The proposed solution allows for candidate path validity to be defined based on new criteria that are particularly useful in various deployment scenarios.
I am also willing to review future versions of this document. Best regards, Imtiyaz On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 13:20, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi WG > > I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author。 > > This draft is an effective supplement to the Candidate-path validity > determination strategy in RFC9256. > > It helps candidate-paths containing multiple segment-lists work > correctly > > > > > 赵德涛 > > 软件平台系统部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 > > > > 中兴通讯股份有限公司 > > 南京市紫荆花路68号南研一期, 邮编: 210012 > > T: +86 15951883174 M: +86 15951883174 <+86%2015951883174> > > E: [email protected] > Original > *From: *AlvaroRetanaviaDatatracker <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] < > [email protected]>; > *Date: *2026年04月10日 03:30 > *Subject: **[spring] Call for adoption: > draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity (Ends 2026-04-23)* > This message starts a spring WG Call for Adoption of: > draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity > > This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-04-23 > > Abstract: > An SR Policy comprises one or more candidate paths of which at a > given time one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in > forwarding plane and usable for steering of traffic). Each candidate > path, in turn, may have one or more segment lists of which one or > more may be active. When multiple segment lists are active, traffic > is load balanced over them. Currently, a candidate path is valid as > long as at least one of its segment lists is active. However, this > default validity criterion does not meet the requirements of some > scenarios. > > This document defines the new candidate path validity criterion. > > > Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption > > of this Internet-Draft by the spring WG. Comments to explain your preference > are greatly appreciated. Also, please indicate your willingness to review > future versions of this document. Reply to all recipients of this message > and include this message in your response. > > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual > Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. > > Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions > of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. > Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be > found at [3]. > > Thank you. > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity/ > > There is also an HTMLized version available at: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-07 > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
