Hi WG,
I support the adoption of all three documents.
These drafts are useful for controlling or reporting the operational status of
SR policies.
Questions for Spring WG:
Do these drafts correct implement [draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid-list-opt]
concepts?
YES
Do you see any problem with the adoption of any of these three drafts:
NO
Question for IDR:
Are there any problems in the technology descriptions?
NO
Does the status and setting of this flag work?
YES
Are the “delays” inherent in BGP distribution a concern?
NO
Does this draft help operators deploy SRv6?
YES
Question for Spring and IDR:
1) Does this draft open any error issues?
NO
Best Regards,
Wei
Original
From: Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Date: 2026-06-24 00:46
To: idr@ietf. org <[email protected]>, spring <[email protected]>
Cc: pce-chairs <[email protected]>, srv6ops-chairs
<[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 = 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]
