Hi Chair and WG, I support advancing this draft to publication.
My responses to the LC questions are: 1) Is this document ready for publication? Ready for publication, the document is technically sound and well-written. 2) Does the segment list identifier specified at the candidate path (CP) scope help deployments? Yes, it provides necessary operational clarity for managing multiple segment lists within a candidate path, aiding deployment and troubleshooting. 3) Are there any technical flaws in this document? I have not identified any technical flaws in this version. Thank you to the authors and chairs. Best regards, Haiyang 发件人: Susan Hares <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2026年5月11日 3:47 收件人: idr@ietf. org <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>; Path Computation Element Discussion List <[email protected]> 主题: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09.txt (5/10/2026 to 5/31/2026) 温馨提示： 此邮件来自公司外部，请核实发件人信息，慎点链接与附件。This is an external email. Please verify the sender's information and proceed with caution when clicking links or downloading attachments. 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/ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。 禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。 如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
