Liaison statement
LS/r on new work item QSTR.SRv6_conf “Method for Verifying Conformance to SRv6" (reply to IETF SRv6OPS-LS1)

Abstract: This liaison statement provides ITU-T SG11 reply to IETF SRv6OPS on
the new Technical Report ITU-T QSTR.SRv6_conf “Method for verifying conformance
to SRv6”.

This liaison statement answers IETF SRv6OPS-LS1 (SG11-TD497/GEN). Please note
that there was a typo in the acronym of the Technical Report (QSTR.MVC)
highlighted in the header of the initial LS (SG11-LS48). The correct acronym
for this Technical Report is QSTR.SRv6_conf. We apologise for any inconvenience
it may have caused.

ITU-T Study Group 11 would like to thank the IETF SRv6OPS for the comprehensive
liaison statement regarding the new Technical Report QSTR.SRv6_conf "Method for
Verifying Conformance to SRv6" which was started by SG11.

ITU-T SG11 acknowledge your understanding that this technical report does not
aim to alter any SRv6 specifications. ITU-T SG11 is committed to ensuring the
accuracy and technical alignment of QSTR.SRv6_conf with IETF SRv6 related
standards.

Regarding the specific points raised in your liaison statement, SG11 would like
to:  note your clarification that the IETF does not identify a subset of
SRv6-related specifications as "Core SRv6 Standards," and we acknowledge this
is a classification specific to ITU-T SG11. We will address this categorization
in our ongoing work.  appreciate the corrections regarding the applicability
of certain RFCs (e.g., RFC 8665, RFC 8666, and RFC 8667) which apply to SR-MPLS
rather than SRv6, and that some RFCs (e.g., RFC 9256) apply to both. We will
review the listed RFCs and correct their applicability and names as identified
(e.g., RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing).  take note of your
recommendation to provide specific references to sections and text from RFCs
when referring to aspects as "mandatory" or "optional". We understand this
approach is crucial to avoid misalignment with IETF standards, as highlighted
by the example of "Packet Tagging and Tag Processing" in RFC 8754. We will
ensure that future revisions reflect this precise referencing to address the
highlighted misalignments.  acknowledge that while IETF specifications aim is
to facilitate interoperability, the IETF does not develop formal conformance
test suites. However, SG11 is very interested in the ongoing work of
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG WG) related to SR-related
benchmarking methodology specification.

ITU-T SG11 welcomes further collaboration on these matters. We encourage
experts, who have questions pertaining to particular SRv6-related
specifications and/or SR benchmarking methodology, to address them to BMWG WG
accordingly.

We believe that close collaboration between SG11 and related IETF WGs is
essential to advancing QSTR.SRv6 and fostering broader interoperability.