Aijun: This is a good idea I can discuss with the authors. However, the first step toward this combination is a decision on whether the WG wants to adoption (any or all of these drafts).
Cheerily, Sue From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:57 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]>; 'idr@ietf. org' <[email protected]>; 'spring' <[email protected]> Cc: 'pce-chairs' <[email protected]>; 'srv6ops-chairs' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Idr] [SR-TE]Adoption call for 3 drafts: 1) draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags, 2) draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize, 3) draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt (6/22/2026 to 7/14/2026 Hi, Sue: If these three drafts are interrelated, I would like you to encourage the authors of these drafts to combine into one draft, not three separate documents. Should we try to decrease the "fragmentation" of IETF standards? I have reviewed all three documents and think they can be combined into one document. And, It seems that the "IFN (Install Final Node-sid) - 1 bit (Bit Position TBD1):" in draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt, is actually defined in draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize-06.txt, then why the WG adoption call draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 12:46 AM To: idr@ietf. org <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: pce-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; srv6ops-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Idr] [SR-TE]Adoption call for 3 drafts: 1) draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags, 2) draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize, 3) draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt (6/22/2026 to 7/14/2026 Greetings: This is an adoption 3 week WG adoption call sent to IDR and Spring for the following 3 drafts: 1. draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flag-05.txt - 2. draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize-06.txt 3. draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt Both WGs must agree that these drafts are useful and appropriate. The authors of these three drafts should respond to this email with an IPR Statement specifying the following: 1) draft you are a co-author on, 2) Whether you know of any IPR on that draft. Background for the WG and Spring. [I-D. draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid- list-opt] specifies procedures to indicate whether the endpoint's node SID needs to be included or excluded when installing the SRv6 Policy. 1) draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags specifies as Segment List Administrative Flags as segment list SubTLV. Flags include: S- admin shutdown, B- backup ineligible, I-Ignore service route's Prefix SID, D- drop upon invalid (section 8.2, RFC9256), and E - eligible. 2) draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dliu-2Didr-2Dsr-2Dsegment-2Dlist-2Doptimize_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=rEoy_H4r-c4UNUr3jSF-7Q&m=RjntOQpE0PTOmyN9aktQ2Swdw2n9KkMaab5dO_bRoNPQbJdQYV5cBJEfNcJbuuOI&s=rwc-kio_SJHar0SdViNs5UMjP6RG_m8-s8v6at9IV5o&e=> = adds a flag of flag INF-Flag to Segment list administrative flags specified by draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags. The value (1) for INF-Flags indicates endpoint node SID is included in installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path (CP) when set. 3) draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt - send INF-Flag in BGP-LS Why 3 drafts in 1 call? As you can see from the description, if draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags is not adopted - then the other two drafts cannot be adopted. Similarly, if draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimized is not adopted, then draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution cannot be adopted. Questions for Spring WG: 1) Do these drafts correct implement [draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid-list-opt] concepts?> 2) Do you see any problem with the adoption of any of these three drafts: (draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flag-05.txt, draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize-06.txt, draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt) Question for IDR: 1) Are there any problems in the technology descriptions? 2) Does the status and setting of this flag work? Are the "delays" inherent in BGP distribution a concern? 3) Does this draft help operators deploy SRv6? Question for Spring and IDR: 1) Does this draft open any error issues? Please include in your comments - Support or No support for adoption. Cheerily, Susan Hares
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
