Hi Sue and others,
1. I think that draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags and draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize should be merged together. The latter is just adding a new flag to the first one which is the defining the container. draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize has a lot of test about dataplane that should not be in the IDR draft as dataplane behavior is defined by SPRING, the only required piece for IDR is the flag definition with reference to SPRING draft. As draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags (which defines the container) is still early stage, it makes sense to define all required flags in this document. 2. draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution is different as it relates to BGP-LS and not "BGP SRTE", I would keep it separate mainly because people working on BGP LS and BGP SRTE are usually not the same and BGP-LS usually have its own set of drafts. My preference would then to keep it separate from the two others. 3. On draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags, I have a bit of concern that we are defining flags here and there in protocols (like the S flag) while not having a clear data model (protocol agnostic) defined by SPRING, especially in what "attribute" relates to policy, CP or SL. Coordination of this should come from SPRING so then the various protocols could encode them (PCEP, BGP SRTE, BGP LS.). While for some flags in the draft we have a clear reference from SPRING, it's not the case for all of them, especially the S (admin shut) flag. 4. I'm not convinced about the name "Admin Flags", eligibility is probably more an operational state. We could debate about this naming. Brgds, Stephane From: Susan Hares <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:28 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; 'idr@ietf. org' <[email protected]>; 'spring' <[email protected]> Cc: 'pce-chairs' <[email protected]>; 'srv6ops-chairs' <[email protected]> Subject: [spring] 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 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] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:57 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; '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: 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) <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_d oc_draft-2Dliu-2Didr-2Dsr-2Dsegment-2Dlist-2Doptimize_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTD llvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=rEoy_H4r-c4UNUr3jSF-7Q&m=RjntOQpE0PTOmyN 9aktQ2Swdw2n9KkMaab5dO_bRoNPQbJdQYV5cBJEfNcJbuuOI&s=rwc-kio_SJHar0SdViNs5UMj P6RG_m8-s8v6at9IV5o&e=> draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize = 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]
