Review request
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi

draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi has specific needs for review based on the area:

OPS-DIR + RTG-DIR - This draft contains the procedures in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-segment-routing-te-policy for segment types A and B. 
Please note this has a dependency on the format of [RFC9012], but the SR Policy Tunnel type only uses the envelope of [RFC9012] TEA attribute.  None of the TLVs in [RFC9012] are required, and none of the validation of [RFC9012] are required.  The Validation is done in the SRPM module specified by Spring (RFC9252].  Therefore, the syntax validation is in BGP and the context validation is in the SRPM. 

Please consider this in your review.  Is this a problem? 

This draft split the procedures for segment types A-B away from segment types C-L (contained in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02) since segment types C-L did not have the required 2 implementations. Is this going to be a problem? 

Please review the validation procedures. 

INT/Transport Area Review team: 
This routing document (draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi) extends the color functions in the BGP Extended Community Color to aid the steering of traffic flows into particular routing paths.  Color tagging is part of the Intent-based signaling of upper-layer desire for VPNs within routing technology. Other drafts that provide functions to carry Intent are draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car (via color) and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct (via class). 

It would be good to get a transport reviewer to help see if we are really Transport/INT functions being defined.