< only as a co-author of RFC 9256 > Hi Adrian,
Please check inline below for responses. On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:24 AM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Section 2.11 says two slightly ambiguous things: > > 1. > > Generally, only valid SR policies are instantiated in the forwarding > plane. > > This means that sometimes non-valid SR policies are instantiated in the > forwarding plane. But I don't see anything in the text to say when or why > that would be done. > > Can anyone provide an explanation? > KT> The reference was to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#section-8.2 - perhaps this should have been clarified with a cross reference to that section. > > 2. > > Only the active candidate path MUST be used for forwarding traffic > that is being steered onto that policy except for certain scenarios > such as fast reroute where a backup candidate path may be used as > described in Section 9.3. > > As written this implies that there is no prohibition to use other candidate > paths. I suspect that this is not what was meant. > > Part of the problem is caused by the use of the passive voice. If we insert > a responsible actor we may get closer to what the working group intended > which is, I think, as follows: > > A headend node MUST use only the active candidate path for > forwarding traffic that is being steered onto that policy, except > for certain scenarios such as fast reroute where a backup > candidate path MAY be used as described in Section 9.3. > > Is this correct? > KT> Yes, that is correct. Thanks, Ketan > > > Many thanks, > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
