Hi WG,
We post a new draft: draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases. It replaced the draft: draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-group-use-cases. The following comments[1] have been captured when the draft was presented in IETF103 meeting. 1. Dhruv dhody: SR policy have already defined composition policy? What is the difference? 2. Mike Koldychev: When you say a special SR policy, it actually is a composition candidate path. Should keep using the same term in the SR policy draft. 3. Boris Khasanov: Please update this draft with implementation status. We addressed those comments, rename the draft and generated a new revision draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases. The main updates are as follows： 1. Replace the term “Policy group” with “composite candidate path” and “parent SR Policy” which are described in section 2.2 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. The following text is extract from [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] section 2.2: A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping SR Policies. …... The following criteria apply for inclusion of constituent SR Policies using a composite candidate path under a parent SR Policy. 2. Added section 7 , describing the current implementation status. Comments and feedbacks are appreciated. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/minutes-113-spring-00 Best Regards Wenying
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
