[spring] Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)

[Wei Wang]

Hi all,


I support the publication of this document. Scoping the segment list identifier 
at the candidate path level is operationally beneficial and raises no technical 
concerns.


Thanks,
Wei




         Original
         
       
From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com&gt;
Date: 2026-05-11 03:46
To: idr@ietf. org <i...@ietf.org&gt;, spring <spring@ietf.org&gt;, Path 
Computation Element Discussion List <p...@ietf.org&gt;
Subject: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 
to 5/31/2026)




Greetings:

&nbsp;

This is a 3-week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt 
(5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026). &nbsp;The authors of 
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt should respond to this email with 
IPR statements.  &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This IDR WG LC is being cross-posted to Spring, PCE, and SRv6ops.&nbsp; This 
document’s WG LC needs input from these 3 WGs. 

&nbsp;

IDR WG members should discuss this draft and include in their discussion an 
indication of “support” or “no Support”. &nbsp;&nbsp;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? 

&nbsp;

Appendix A of this draft contains a “cross-WG” information regarding Spring and 
PCE. &nbsp;&nbsp;This WG LC includes Spring and PCE to validate the cross-WG 
information.&nbsp; In addition, SRV6ops will be informed of the  WG LC.

&nbsp;

This draft limits the scope of the segment list identifier to a candidate 
path.&nbsp; During January – March, &nbsp;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. &nbsp;The discussion is at:  

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE/

&nbsp;

Spring WG – please review the author's decision to limit the BGP mechanism to a 
candidate path.&nbsp; Does this limitation align with Spring’s view on the 
segment list identifier? &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

PCE WG - &nbsp;please check that the reference material related to 
draft-ietf-pce-multipath are correct and valid. 

&nbsp;

Thank you, Susan Hares

&nbsp;

PS – the SRv6ops is an operational WG – so I will send notification and 
summarize results.&nbsp; 

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org