Hi Sue, Thanks for your response. I agree the appendix with cross-WG information is useful for the process of the document.
My comment was to make the appendix text concise and relevant. I hope this is easy to fix for the authors. Best regards, Jie From: Susan Hares <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 10:53 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: RE: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026) Jie: Appendix A will be removed prior to publication. The purpose of this appendix is to provide the IDR WG, Directorates, and IESG with background on the cross-WG issues. This is a new process to hopefully avoid the cross-WG issues that delayed other BGP SR TE drafts (e.g. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp). I agree that appendix A.1 is repetitive to the main text. The authors may wish to consider what information the IESG needs in addition to the main text. I agree that section A.3 should be change before going to the IESG. Current text:/ A.3. SRv6OPS This document is unrelated to SRv6OPS and only relates to BGP-TE extensions. [RFC9857] defines an optional sub-TLV (called SR Segment List Identifier sub-TLV) used to report an identifier associated with the specific SID list via BGP-LS. This sub-TLV is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP-LS Attribute defined in [RFC9552] and are associated with the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type. / New text:/ A.3. SRv6OPS This document is unrelated to SRv6OPS and only relates to BGP-TE extensions. / Thank you for your input, Cheerily - Sue From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:27 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026) Hi Sue, WG, After the discussion with the authors and WG members about the relationship between candidate path and segment lists in SR Policy architecture on the SPRING list, I agree it is suitable to have the segment list ID scoped under the Hi Sue, WG, After the discussion with the authors and WG members about the relationship between candidate path and segment lists in SR Policy architecture on the SPRING list, I agree it is suitable to have the segment list ID scoped under the candidate path hierarchy. This is also consistent with the specification of segment list ID in BGP-LS and PCEP extensions. Thus I support progressing this document. I have one comment about the newly added appendix. The text in appendix A.1 has much overlap with the text in the introduction, and is not about the related work in SPRING WG. It is suggested to clear up the text and focus on the work or discussion in SPRING WG related to this draft. Similarly, the text in appendix A.3 about RFC 9857 is not related to SRv6OPS. Best regards, Jie From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:47 AM To: idr@ietf. org <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026) Greetings: This is a 3-week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026). The authors of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt should respond to this email with IPR statements. This IDR WG LC is being cross-posted to Spring, PCE, and SRv6ops. This document's WG LC needs input from these 3 WGs. IDR WG members should discuss this draft and include in their discussion an indication of "support" or "no Support". IDR members should consider the following: 1) Is this document ready for publication? 2) Does the segment list identifier specified at the candidate path (CP) scope help deployments? 3) Are there any technical flaws in this document? Appendix A of this draft contains a "cross-WG" information regarding Spring and PCE. This WG LC includes Spring and PCE to validate the cross-WG information. In addition, SRV6ops will be informed of the WG LC. This draft limits the scope of the segment list identifier to a candidate path. During January - March, the spring WG discussed whether this should be limited to just the Candidate Path or whether the scope of Segment List ID as unique within the headend node. The discussion is at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_spring_JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=EbdRkbs2KtH8Xpwn0HfLr2uN1Hb8Y6z3k3u6qVzKb5oo5pfIc0O-1oAMcSIeHnfR&s=CspAgbuqbo5ENfclh-32puYrZfCJ2pTfrfs5zXrj698&e=> Spring WG - please review the author's decision to limit the BGP mechanism to a candidate path. Does this limitation align with Spring's view on the segment list identifier? PCE WG - please check that the reference material related to draft-ietf-pce-multipath are correct and valid. Thank you, Susan Hares PS - the SRv6ops is an operational WG - so I will send notification and summarize results.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
