draft: [ draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-cp-validity](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-cp-validity)
WG status: Individual
current version: 01
Next Steps: adoptoin ok, Needs -04 RFC and IANA update"
** draft:** draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-cp-validity-03
Please update draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy ro RFC9857.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy].
Issues 1 and 2 are coovered in revision -03.
Issue 3 (indicating that BGP-lS) is covered by use of RFC9552.
Issue 4 is covered by use of RFC9857.
Issue 5 is covered by security text in -03
** draft:** draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-cp-validity-01
WG status: Individual draft
current version: 01
review email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gUAvOQnTXt1hZD1WASzn3mDUkFo/
Why does the CP Validity Sub-TLV adds value to the BGP-LS streamgiving the count of segments in a segment list.
If so, please adjust your text to indicate BGP-LS is read-only.
Please augment your procedures to indicate what happens of the information is not available. What gets sent in BGP-LS?