[Idr] Re: [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

[Hongwei Li <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2026 8:33 PM
> *To:* idr <[e-mail]>; spring <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* pce-chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *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
>