[SRv6OPS] FW: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Greetings srv6ops:

The IDR WG would like srv6ops input on the usefulness of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt.  This draft passes the segment list ID as part of the Tunnel attribute associated with an SR Policy SAFI NLRI.  The segment list ID is scoped to the candidate path.

IDR is in the midst of a WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt.   You can make comments directly to the IDR WG LC at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SAk6o9KDYevywaRke-QZendYiXk/

Below is the diagram of the BGP tunnel attribute TLV containing the segment list id.

Thank you,
Susan Hares
(IDR co-chair, shepherd for the draft)


Diagram of tunnel Attribute TL
   SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
   Attributes:
      Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)
         Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
             Binding SID
             SRv6 Binding SID
             Preference
             Priority
             Policy Name
             Policy Candidate Path Name
             Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
             Segment List
                 Weight
                 Segment List Identifier
                 Segment
                 Segment
                 ...




From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 3:47 PM
To: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; spring <[e-mail]>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[e-mail]>
Subject: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026)

Greetings:

This is a 3-week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026).  The authors of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt should respond to this email with IPR statements.

This IDR WG LC is being cross-posted to Spring, PCE, and SRv6ops.  This document's WG LC needs input from these 3 WGs.

IDR WG members should discuss this draft and include in their discussion an indication of "support" or "no Support".   IDR members should consider the following:
1) Is this document ready for publication?
2) Does the segment list identifier specified at the candidate path (CP) scope help deployments?
3) Are there any technical flaws in this document?

Appendix A of this draft contains a "cross-WG" information regarding Spring and PCE.   This WG LC includes Spring and PCE to validate the cross-WG information.  In addition, SRV6ops will be informed of the WG LC.

This draft limits the scope of the segment list identifier to a candidate path.  During January - March,  the spring WG discussed whether this should be limited to just the Candidate Path or whether the scope of Segment List ID as unique within the headend node.  The discussion is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_spring_JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=PruftSsQfg4YfGoN3_aMQlSlyL_tgpiUrI6Ob68qGiwUmujRKF5RCyAVtsuacaSE&s=aZ1XHY1BVt2yVXQEjwc5ghDTvMm_f2CvDaX393mBWIA&e=>

Spring WG - please review the author's decision to limit the BGP mechanism to a candidate path.  Does this limitation align with Spring's view on the segment list identifier?

PCE WG -  please check that the reference material related to draft-ietf-pce-multipath are correct and valid.

Thank you, Susan Hares

PS - the SRv6ops is an operational WG - so I will send notification and summarize results.