[spring] Input requested: SR Policy state reporting requirement
宋力焱 <songliyan@chinamobile.com> Mon, 30 March 2026 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <songliyan@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50317D350C49; Sun, 29 Mar 2026 23:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1774850942; bh=4M1oGFMhjPJmriLo3y1Vcz8M6286GSdsCyoxOp25NJ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=dOsT2tt7ICNozRxcuEva6ig1gvEBwrSgqJf8nPnsHC9RSz23jdJF2n8gOp8j0OtMW xyrTW9s+dmytCb7mSX8ZlzZsELdQMwt1vA+/6jXD1BVBPcW+Dr82uafan1noOPJtsj 0sf+WlmYp6yct/rZoxJM/i11c0ezoyexQFB5ygdI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HDRS_MISSP=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=chinamobile.com
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 hfF0FD-77FVG; Sun, 29 Mar 2026 23:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.137]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5273D350C0A; Sun, 29 Mar 2026 23:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chinamobile.com; s=default; l=0; h=from:subject:message-id:to:cc:mime-version; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; b=P+ZqCINdiER4Y/4OQ7fjF8XLw6KG1dWYBteatvhbJNlV+in6pTBhtSTMBUiOrxpF70kj8HPGb1Wqx xXD7etPwwDkWjw3c6ECvzE8jA9QOt67IwfcDhqq8sUosM7vfzuYQkkpOc6ts0j4Ix4IhfMG5IfLs6D aSAaPrsVN5I5T5Pc=
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app08-12008 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee869ca1371da8-03e7b; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:08:50 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee869ca1371da8-03e7b
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from LAPTOP-PQESHEH6 (unknown[10.2.157.85]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee469ca1366d69-34a37; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:08:39 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee469ca1366d69-34a37
MIME-Version: 1.0
x-PcFlag: 79bc6da8-c043-422d-a435-3f82876a16da_5_66803
X-Mailer: PC_RICHMAIL 2.9.57
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:08:38 +0800
From: 宋力焱 <songliyan@chinamobile.com>
To: idr-chairs <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, spring-chairs <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, idr <idr@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <202603301408381227868380@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/Alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart1227868380_=----"
Message-ID-Hash: CPOWJPPT2NJMNEFXJJYT2GAVFVMGQMGH
X-Message-ID-Hash: CPOWJPPT2NJMNEFXJJYT2GAVFVMGQMGH
X-MailFrom: songliyan@chinamobile.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: lizhenqiang <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, songguangchenjc <songguangchenjc@chinamobile.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Input requested: SR Policy state reporting requirement
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/9oY2TbXJtxXy8FYQfDE5saTeYRU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>
Dear WG chairs and all, Following discussions in IDR (including feedback from the IDR chairs), we would like to seek input from SPRING on the requirement and direction for SR Policy state reporting. We observe that there is currently no standard mechanism to report SR Policy operational state (Policy / Candidate Path / Segment List) from headend nodes to a controller in a structured and hierarchical manner. Existing approaches (e.g., BGP-LS, YANG) either require additional protocol mechanisms or do not align well with SR Policy constructs. In particular, they may require controllers to establish additional sessions (e.g., YANG) with headend nodes. To address this, we are working on a draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-sr-policy-state-report/ . The draft extends BGP SR Policy (as defined in RFC 9830) to carry state information, allowing both policy provisioning and state reporting within the same framework, thereby reducing protocol overhead and simplifying operations. Before proceeding further, we would like to confirm: 1. Is such a requirement considered valid in SPRING? 2. Is extending BGP SR Policy an appropriate direction for this problem? The authors and the IDR WG chairs would greatly appreciate feedback and guidance from the SPRING WG. Any additional comments are also very welcome. Best regards, Liyan Song