Hi all, I support the adoption of draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity. The proposal to enhance candidate path (CP) validity checks with “Minimum Valid Segment List Count” and “Minimum Cumulative SL Weight” addresses a real operational need. However, we have a concern about the “Minimum Cumulative SL Weight” rule in Section 3. Since segment list weights are typically used for relative load-balancing and lack standardized absolute meaning, using their sum as a validity threshold may be hard to configure consistently across different CPs and could lead to operational complexity. This seems related to the bandwidth-based eligibility mechanisms discussed in draft-liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection and draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-eligibility, which may offer a more intuitive way to express resource availability. It will be better to clarify the intended use case for the cumulative weight rule compared to explicit bandwidth-based approaches. Thanks, Zeng Guanming
-----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:30 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 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]
