I support the publication of this document.
The responses to the three questions are as follows: 1) Is this BGP-LS addition technically correct? Yes. 2) Is this document ready for publication? Yes. 3) Will it aid the deployment of BGP SR EPE in networks? Yes. Thanks, Hongwei > > *From:* Susan Hares <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2026 8:33 PM > *To:* idr <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]> > *Cc:* pce-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* [spring] [BGP-LS] > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-02 - WG LC (5/11/2026 to > 5/31/2026) - 3 week WG LC > > > > > > This begins a 3-week WG LC for > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-02.txt (5/11 to 5/31/2026). > > > > This document describes how BGP-LS can support Segment Routing BGP Egress > Peer Engineering by updating RFC9085 to allow the L2 Bundle > > Member Attributes TLV to be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with > the Link NLRI of BGP peering link. > > > > This draft is being cross-posted to Spring to confirm that this draft > aligns with Spring’s goals for SR-EPE. If you believe this does not > represent Spring’s plan for SR-EPE over L2 Bundled links, please reply to > this email. The PCE and srv6ops chairs have been copied in case they wish > to inform their WGs. > > > > The authors of this draft should reply to this email with an IPR statement > regarding this document. > > > > The IDR WG LC should consider: > > > > 1) Is this BGP-LS addition technically correct? > > 2) Is this document ready for publication? > > 3) Will it aid the deployment of BGP SR EPE in networks? > > > > Cheerily, Sue Hares >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
