[spring] About the relationship between cadidate path and segment lists in SR Policy Architecture

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 11 February 2026 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 73BF9B54F550; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 02:31:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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] 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 PmFwem8mG5MH; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 02:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (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 3F6BDB54F549; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 02:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.224.150]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4f9vnp0HQCzJ46kc; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:30:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemh500011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.142]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 346FD40565; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:31:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemf200009.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.246) by kwepemh500011.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:31:04 +0800
Received: from kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.220) by dggpemf200009.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:31:01 +0800
Received: from kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.220]) by kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.220]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.036; Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:31:01 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: About the relationship between cadidate path and segment lists in SR Policy Architecture
Thread-Index: AdybPQHH5EERTxkbQi2UxBddXCRJAQ==
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 10:31:01 +0000
Message-ID: <33ad676d727449d9bbb1aa4fef6fc541@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.122]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_33ad676d727449d9bbb1aa4fef6fc541huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: ZJRQD64S2FG4ZEXIZZ6OL7FCHLLPBWU4
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZJRQD64S2FG4ZEXIZZ6OL7FCHLLPBWU4
X-MailFrom: jie.dong@huawei.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: "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, idr-chairs <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] About the relationship between cadidate path and segment lists in SR Policy Architecture
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE>
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 SPRING WG,

In a recent review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-06 in IDR WG, I have one question about the scope of the segment list ID. It is further related to the relationship between candidate path and segment lists in the SR Policy Architecture.

As described in section 2.1 of this draft, the segment list ID is a 32-bit non-zero number that serves as the identifier associated with a segment list. And it says: the scope of this identifier is the SR Policy Candidate path.

I didn't find the description about segment list ID and its scope in RFC 9526 (SR Policy Architecture. Section 2.2 of RFC 9256 describes the relationship between candidate path and segment list, while it is not clear whether a segment list is bound to a candidate path, or it can be relocated to another candidate path without other change? If it is the latter case, it seems the segment list ID should not be scoped under a specific candidate path. Another related point is how a segment list should be identified/referenced in the control plane/management plane, does it require to use <candidate path ID + segment list ID>, or it can be referenced directly using the segment list ID? This could have impact on other protocol extensions related to the segment list.

After some discussion with the IDR chairs and Ketan, we think it is necessary to bring this to the SPRING WG and ask for your views and opinions.

Best regards,
Jie