Hi WG,
I would like to express my support for the adoption of all three documents.
I believe these drafts address a practical operational gap in SRv6 Policy
deployment by providing explicit administrative controls over segment list
installation. The hierarchical dependency between the drafts is clear and
logical.
Questions for Spring WG:
1) Do these drafts correct implement
[draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid-list-opt] concepts?>---YES
2) Do you see any problem with the adoption of any of these three drafts:---NO
Question for IDR:
1) Are there any problems in the technology descriptions?---NO
2) Does the status and setting of this flag work?---YES Are the “delays”
inherent in BGP distribution a concern?---NO
3) Does this draft help operators deploy SRv6?---YES
Question for Spring and IDR:
1) Does this draft open any error issues?
---I have no further technical issues to raise at this point.
Best regards,
Shengnan
----邮件原文----From: "Susan Hares" <[email protected]>Date: 2026-06-24 00:46:20To:
"idr@ietf. org" <[email protected]>,spring <[email protected]>Cc: "Jeffrey Haas"
<[email protected]>,pce-chairs <[email protected]>,srv6ops-chairs
<[email protected]>Subject: [spring] [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 endpoint39s 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 route39s Prefix SID,
D- drop upon invalid (section 8.2, RFC9256), and E – eligible.
2) 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]
