Hi All,
I read the document and support the publication.
Thanks,
Quan
<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.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
