Subject: [spring] Re: Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy
From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
To: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>, SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>, "Karboubi, Amal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 23:31:54 +0000
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>

WG,

I endorse the WG document and believe that it is ready for the next step.

It is an important work that is addressing the need of some service providers.

Having said that, (we – Amal and myself) would like to bring up a point that
was made to the author, a couple of meetings ago.

This is about a candidate path (CP) using multiple SID lists for the b/w advantage.
In such configuration, if a SID list has faulted, B/W is technically degraded
but candidate path hosting the multiple SID lists will continue to be operational.
To that point, we believe that ‘eligibility’ flag for the candidate path to
influence the use of the CP or not, can be helpful (very much like LAG min link).

There are two options for added verbiage that describes the scenario and how to tackle.
A) not-a-problem if CP uses single SID list (which is most common implementation anyways) OR
B) provide reference to ‘eligibility’ draft as a possible solution (you are part of that effort…).

Either option works. This is a recommendation for authors to consider.

Thanks,
Himanshu
(ciena corp)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy
Resent-Date:
Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:52:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From:
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Resent-To:
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Date:
Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:52:11 -0800
From:
IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>
To:
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy has been changed to "In
WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy/

Comment:
This starts the working group last call for this draft. There was sufficient
engagement and interest to justify issueing this call. Even so, we need to
see support to pass the last call. Please comment, preferably with
explanations, as to your support or opposition to handing this draft to our
AD for processing. Silence is not consent. This call will end at the end of
the day on Monday, Feb 3.