Yimi: I agree that the authors should explicitly address limiting (or configured limits) on the number explicit BGP paths.
I am happy to hear that the documentation convinces you feel the “draft ensures that BGP extensions do not interfere with PCE operations, and any conflicts are resolved per RFC 9256.” Your answer has completely answered my questions. Do others in Spring agree with her view? I need to hear from a number of Spring WG members (and the Spring chairs) on this topic. IDR will not adopt IDR technology for composite links until we have a strong consensus from Spring. Cheerily, Sue From: yimi zhang <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2026 10:38 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [spring] [BGP-SR-TE] Request for information - prior to adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path Hi Sue， Thank you for raising these questions. Below are my answers, tagged <Yimi>: 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? <Yimi> I think that the current draft does not explicitly address limiting constituents to explicit BGP paths. In the next revision, the authors meybe add text to clearly state how to create composite SR Candidate Paths. 2) Is the limitation of composite path to specific BGP sources an appropriate use of the composite concept from SPRING? <Yimi> The composite path concept in RFC 9256 is agnostic to the source of its constituents. I believe that even Limiting constituents to explicit BGP paths is a valid use case that aligns with SPRING’s goal of providing flexible policy composition. 3) How does this interact with the PCE composite CPs? <Yimi> I think that BGP-signaled composite paths and PCE-signaled composite paths are independent. The draft ensures that BGP extensions do not interfere with PCE operations, and any conflicts are resolved per RFC 9256. BR, Yimi Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 于 2026年7月11日周六 00:11写道： 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 [RFC 9862], 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]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
