[spring] Re: Question for the working group
liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Tue, 10 March 2026 09:22 UTC
Return-Path: <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>
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 724CFC7794ED for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 02:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=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, 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 WU-ZCAzls-yB for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 02:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (mxct.zte.com.cn [183.62.165.209]) (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 A9FD7C7794E6 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 02:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (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 mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4fVT124Jgsz4x6BW; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:22:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app04.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.64]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 62A9MAab034110; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:22:10 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:22:12 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa69afe2c4ed2-9ef8d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20260310172212829kuTq_q9qO0m9j2gWGfFpT@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <5ee04659-206e-467a-8133-89398511d31b@joelhalpern.com>
References: 5ee04659-206e-467a-8133-89398511d31b@joelhalpern.com
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:22:12 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 62A9MAab034110
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.132 unknown Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:22:14 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 69AFE2C6.000/4fVT124Jgsz4x6BW
Message-ID-Hash: CUSCLLUKKASRYRQ2KKBY4PHI74HHKG4F
X-Message-ID-Hash: CUSCLLUKKASRYRQ2KKBY4PHI74HHKG4F
X-MailFrom: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
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@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: Question for the working group
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SKbeLn8JKStBxBhDZLKyI8oB3yg>
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>
Hi Joel, Thanks for putting this out for discussion. From my understanding, it's more like bullet 1), an MNA Substack may never be considered a segment in the sense of RFC9256 section 4. An segment of the segment list is either an MPLS label/SRv6 SID or the context that can be resolved to an MPLS label/SRv6 SID. At least an MNA Substack is not one of the existing segment types. Regards, Yao Original From: JoelHalpern <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Date: 2026年03月07日 01:26 Subject: [spring] Question for the working group In regard to Segment Routing Policy as defined by RFC 9256 and the MPLS Network Action (MNA) work that is being standardized by the MPLS working group, please express an opinion as to whether: 1) An MNA Substack may never be considered a segment in the sense of RFC 9256 section 4; 2) Some MNA substacks may be considered segments in the sense of RFC 9256 Section 4 (possibly with a new segment type, possibly with an existing segment type) 3) MNA substacks are segments in the sense of RFC 9256 section 4 (possibly with a new segment type, possibly with an existing segment type) Yours, Joel (with Alvaro and Bruno) _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org
- [spring] Question for the working group Joel Halpern
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group - reg… Joel Halpern
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group Tony Li
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group liu.yao71