Hi chen, As an operator with large-scale SR network deployment experience, we strongly support this draft. The solution proposed in this draft effectively extends the content of RFC 9256— which only relies on active SID lists and overlooks path stability, latency thresholds, and fault tolerance, all critical for our mission-critical services. We recommend further clarifying how the proposed parameters map to practical scenarios (e.g., adjusting thresholds for low-latency vs. high-reliability services) to improve implementability.
| JinMing LI China Mobile +8618810926581 [email protected] BeiJing China | ———————————————————————————— From："chen.ran" <[email protected]> To：spring <[email protected]> Cc: spring-chairs <[email protected]> Sent：2025-11-25 17:04:42 Subject：[spring] Request for Discussion: Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path Hi WG， We would like to initiate a discussion on the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity/ . This draft builds upon RFC 9256 and it adds further considerations to the existing validation mechanisms in RFC 9256, with a focus on improving the current approach to CP validity checks.It defines new quantitative criteria (e.g., minimum valid SL count and weight) to refine the CP validity determination specified in RFC 9256, addressing limitations inherent in the simple "at least one active SID-List" criterion. This work is critical for improving the reliability and operational accuracy of SR Policy deployments. We request feedback on the mailing list to help us advance this draft. Thank you! BR, Ran
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
