Dear Alvaro，
Thank you very much for your detailed and candid feedback. We agree that
rigorous review is essential, and your comments accurately identify where our
draft needs to be strengthened to achieve Standards Track.
We accept comments that the current draft is too descriptive and relies too
heavily on examples when defining the core switching mechanism.
Our Plan Moving Forward
We will immediately focus our efforts on converting the draft from a conceptual
document to a prescriptive specification by taking the following steps:
1.Refining the Scope: We will further clarify the distinction between the
generic Eligibility attribute (the information model knob defined in
draft-karboubi) and the Quality-Driven CP Switching defined here, ensuring our
document only specifies the conditions and rules for dynamic performance
management.
2.Introducing Switching Logic: We will improve Sections 4 and 5 by introducing
standard language description of switching logic and decision rules, and
explicitly defining performance-based triggering and recovery procedures.
3.Connecting the Suite: We will clearly reference our submitted companion
drafts (BGP/PCEP extensions) to confirm that the full protocol specification
for the required signaling exists, thus addressing the protocol specification
gap.
We appreciate the clear guidance on what is needed to satisfy the Standards
Track requirements. We will submit a new version as soon as possible.
BR,
Ran
Original
From: AlvaroRetana <[email protected]>
To: Yisong Liu <[email protected]>;spring-chairs
<[email protected]>;spring <[email protected]>;
Cc: draft-liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2025年11月19日 21:36
Subject: [spring] Re: Follow-up on IETF 124 Presentation of
draft-liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection and draft clarification
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
On November 18, 2025 at 8:26:51 PM, Yisong Liu wrote:
Yisong:
Hi! How are you?
> Thank you for the valuable feedback following our presentation at
> IETF 124. We would like to offer some clarification to ensure our
> draft's purpose is properly understood.
>
> In our latest revision, we have referenced
> draft-karboubi-spring-sr-policy-eligibility, though we wish to
> emphasize that the two drafts serve distinctly different purposes.
> The eligibility draft introduces new concepts for path qualification,
> while our draft focuses specifically on defining a mechanism for path
> selection and switching based on forwarding performance metrics such
> as latency, jitter, and bandwidth. Our approach predefines quality
> requirements for SR policies and enables rapid path selection or
> switching when real-time monitoring indicates these requirements are
> no longer met. The reference to eligibility is included to maintain
> compatibility with the SR Policy architecture defined in RFC 9256.
>
> We believe there is no significant overlap between our draft and
> eligibility draft and see value in advancing them independently.
I understand what you're saying, but I am having a hard time seeing that
reflected in the document.
(1) From §4:
When a candidate path fails to meet forwarding quality
requirements, its Eligibility attribute SHOULD be set to false,
thereby excluding it from active candidate path selection.
This text is effectively the same as what
draft-karboubi-spring-sr-policy-eligibility says in §3.2 (Example 2:
Delay sensitive paths):
...the policy could have a constraint to not use a path when its
end-end delay exceeds a given value D1. ... In this case, a
system could set the eligibility as false when it detects that
path delay exceeds D1 (e.g. using STAMP) rendering path
ineligible for selection...
The main difference I see is that
draft-karboubi-spring-sr-policy-eligibility focuses the example on
delay, while your document mentions other possible "threshold
parameters" (§4.1). Your document also includes examples in §4.1 and
§5. If I may go further, the document is a more detailed version of
the example in §3.2/draft-karboubi-spring-sr-policy-eligibility.
The comments at the meeting in Montreal also mentioned a "high
amount of overlap" (even from one of the authors of this document).
(2) From above: "our draft focuses specifically on defining a mechanism for
path selection and switching based on forwarding performance metrics".
A mechanism is described in §4.3 (Flexible Candidate Path Selection
Process):
1) The document mentions that a "headend may be informed about the
forwarding quality requirements...through various means", and
points at BGP and PCEP drafts (§4).
2) Examples of how the path can be monitored are listed in §4.3,
but I see no specification...only examples.
3) The Rules for Setting the Eligibility Attribute (§4.2) are
basically the same as what is defined in
draft-karboubi-spring-sr-policy-eligibility: if the constraints are
met, set the Eligibility to True; otherwise, it can be set to False.
4) Finally, "whether to revert to the previous active candidate
path can be specified by the configuration" is mentioned as a
possibility, but no explicit specification.
In summary, if the intent is to define/specify a mechanism, there's
significant work to be done, given that the document only mentions
examples at this point. The current content does not justify the
Intended Status of putting this document in the Standards Track.
> We would appreciate if the chairs can give the guidance on how to
> proceed with our draft. Additionally, we have formally requested an
> adoption call during our presentation and would be grateful if the
> chairs can help to schedule this.
In addition to the comments above, the main action item at this time is to
build WG engagement and interest. I only found comments from one other
non-author in the archive (Joel) [1]. We need to see explicit engagement and
interest [2] before moving forward.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection%22&f_list=spring
[2] https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/spring/WG_Policies_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
