Return-Path: 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)" To: "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" , idr-chairs , "idr@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bspring=5D_About_the_relationship_between_cadidate_path_and_segm?= =?utf-8?q?ent_lists_in_SR_Policy_Architecture?= List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --_000_33ad676d727449d9bbb1aa4fef6fc541huaweicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear SPRING WG, In a recent review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-06 in IDR WG, I h= ave one question about the scope of the segment list ID. It is further rela= ted 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 lis= t. And it says: the scope of this identifier is the SR Policy Candidate pat= h. I didn't find the description about segment list ID and its scope in RFC 95= 26 (SR Policy Architecture. Section 2.2 of RFC 9256 describes the relations= hip 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 anot= her 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 , or it can be referenced directly using the segme= nt 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 necessa= ry to bring this to the SPRING WG and ask for your views and opinions. Best regards, Jie --_000_33ad676d727449d9bbb1aa4fef6fc541huaweicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear SPRING WG,

 

In a recent review of draft-iet= f-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-06 in IDR WG, I have one question about the scop= e 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 th= is identifier is the SR Policy Candidate path.

 

I didn’t find the descrip= tion about segment list ID and its scope in RFC 9526 (SR Policy Architectur= e. Section 2.2 of RFC 9256 describes the relationship between candidate pat= h and segment list, while it is not clear whether a segment list is bound to a candidate path, or it can be relocate= d 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 candida= te path. Another related point is how a segment list should be identified/referenced in the control plane/ma= nagement plane, does it require to use <candidate path ID + segment = list ID>, or it can be referenced directly using the segment list ID? Th= is 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

 

--_000_33ad676d727449d9bbb1aa4fef6fc541huaweicom_--