IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Tue, 12 May 2026 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FBFECCDF72; Mon, 11 May 2026 20:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778556285; bh=3p+GEhqXEVpEptbi4Rnk3lUzqBgKEPUjIwWvOJvEapw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=KXlYmQK2l52iBKhf3faLRdlGGVL/2yT0Kr1F4arbHf+iCchxIG4vPDotQ7YrOVQfH TWNp36vkNiOxB5mjBwF6mUb+PBsJBqOM+lhXQyX/5yV4fkcX/ibqCmZ/tTVPPLQNm7 2plcV78KYchh/8mDTSmnueHV8Yb5HC58k8DIsRWM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ItluMEcK551q; Mon, 11 May 2026 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [160.30.148.34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D11EECCDEFE; Mon, 11 May 2026 20:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4gF25H3Zb2z57DCf; Tue, 12 May 2026 11:24:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app03.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.14]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 64C3OQcA011961; Tue, 12 May 2026 11:24:26 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 12 May 2026 11:24:27 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b006a029d6bcb8-4d392
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20260512112427535ytY_rqg-bJTTBvfaOAimH@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <DM8PR08MB741323A62687BDCE44A2951DB33B2@DM8PR08MB7413.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: DM8PR08MB741323A62687BDCE44A2951DB33B2@DM8PR08MB7413.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 11:24:27 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 64C3OQcA011961
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.133 unknown Tue, 12 May 2026 11:24:35 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6A029D73.000/4gF25H3Zb2z57DCf
Message-ID-Hash: V4JMTBIEKDX73GEV5IJ2GM37NYYWWWPX
X-Message-ID-Hash: V4JMTBIEKDX73GEV5IJ2GM37NYYWWWPX
X-MailFrom: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Pce] Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Rh7y5-Rkg-xNpxamCini8Bx3PYw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pce-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pce-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pce-leave@ietf.org>

Support the publication of this draft.
Thanks,
Sandy











Original


From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
  
To: idr@ietf. <idr@ietf.org>;spring <spring@ietf.org>;Path Computation Element Discussion List <pce@ietf.org>;
  
Date: 2026年05月11日 03:47
  
Subject: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)
  


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- idr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave@ietf.org
   

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.

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status