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

[[e-mail]]

Hi All,

I read the document and support the publication.

Thanks,
Quan



<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.