Hi spring and idr， I think this document is ready for adoption, and I support this adoption. Below are my responses:
1) Can composite SR Candidate Paths be limited to be created from only explicit (aka Static) BGP SR Candidate path? • If so, how is it done (technically)? • What text should be found in draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 on this limited? • Is it there? This draft distributes a composite candidate path "container" that references constituent SR Policies by color. It does NOT create, generate, or install the candidate paths (segment lists or dynamic paths) of those constituent SR Policies. It does not change or restrict anything and fully complies with the definition in RFC9256. 2) Is the limitation of composite path to specific BGP sources an appropriate use of the composite concept from SPRING? It is a Complementary Extension to RFC 9830 It does not alter the existing deployment methods for SR policies; it only extends BGP to support the distribution of composite candidate paths based on [RFC9830]. 3) How does this interact with the PCE composite CPs? Both BGP and PCE can signal composite paths. If a constituent policy is available via both protocols, the headend uses standard SR Policy selection rules. This draft does not modify these rules. Niangen 发件人: Susan Hares <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2026年7月11日 0:09 收件人: 'SPRING WG' <[email protected]>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]> 主题: [spring] [BGP-SR-TE] Request for information - prior to adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path Greetings Spring and IDR: Please note that IPR may exist for this technology. If you are participating in this discussion and know of IPR, please see the IETF IPR rules. The authors of draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 have requested WG LC. During IETF-125, I spent a lengthy time discussing the issues of creating BGP routes from any dynamic source (e.g. IGP). The authors indicated that these BGP composite paths would come from explicit SR Policy Candidate Policies, which are statically configured. This document’s abstract states: SR Policy Architecture [RFC9256] defines the concept of a Composite Candidate Path. A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment Lists, while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to a set of SR Policies on the same headend. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies carrying composite candidate path information. So that composite candidate paths can be installed when the SR policy is applied. The authors have indicated that the source for the composite policy would be BGP explicit SR Candidate Paths. The SR policy in the composite path can be distributed by BGP as described in [RFC9830], by PCEP as described in [RFC9862], or through static configuration. I have 3 groups of questions as the shepherd for this draft: 1) Can composite SR Candidate Paths be limited to be created from only explicit (aka Static) BGP SR Candidate path? If so, how is it done (technically)? What text should be found in draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 on this limited? Is it there? 2) Is the limitation of composite path to specific BGP sources an appropriate use of the composite concept from SPRING? 3) How does this interact with the PCE composite CPs? Cheerily, Sue Hares
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
