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

[Hongwei Li <[e-mail]>]

I support the publication of this document.

Scoping the segment list identifier at the candidate path level is
beneficial for deployment, operations, and troubleshooting.




Thanks,

Hongwei





*From:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
*Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2026 3:47 AM
*To:* idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; spring <[e-mail]>; Path
Computation Element Discussion List <[e-mail]>
*Subject:* [Idr] 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/



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.