Hi WG， 1.We appreciate the authors' choice of simple, quantifiable parameters (counts/weights), which are highly efficient to implement .This makes the work very practical. We believe the draft is ready for adoption and implementation.
2.We fully support this draft. The quantitative criteria introduced here are critical for improving the reliability of SR Policy. The current validation mechanism in RFC 9256 is insufficient for guaranteeing the high availability our services require. BR, Yanrong ----邮件原文---- 发件人："chen.ran" <[email protected]> 收件人：spring <[email protected]> 抄 送: spring-chairs <[email protected]> 发送时间：2025-11-25 17:04:42 主题：[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<http://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]
