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

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Nat:

Thank you for your response!

Sue

From: Nat Kao <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 5:24 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; spring <[e-mail]>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)

Hi, Sue.

I've reviewed the -09 version and believe it's ready for publication.
This extension improves the visibility and manageability when deploying SR-Policy via BGP.
I don't think there's a technical flaw in this version.
Many Thanks!
Nat

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 3:48 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gMtM7N2vUE-3U4Eb5L6btopO9DBmwh4bfEDvKHScz7EcGh_6tfoFCjmoXPfdeC5T&s=SCRyjnW-ViV1inqYVPQGgOtEjUKtxx6CD20VsvqV5aE&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.







_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>