The result of this early TSV-ART review's is "On the Right Track" rather than some form of "Ready" for the sole reason that the scope of this review is limited to the requested scope, namely:
---
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.
---

In addition to the drafts noted in that request, RFC 9256 (Segment Routing Policy Architecture) has already introduced the use of color in SR Policy (Segment Routing Policy).  Section 2.1 of RFC 9256 requires use of color for SR Policy identification, and section 8 of RFC 9256 makes extensive use of color in procedures for BGP steering of traffic based on SR Policies.  I don't believe that RFC 9256's extension of color to this sort of BGP steering poses any serious transport-related concerns, even if that BGP functionality is used to realize QoS differences among portions of traffic to the same destination.  That's just as well, as any such concern would almost certainly also need to be raised against RFC 9256, a Proposed Standard RFC, and not just against this draft.

This draft is primarily concerned with how BGP carries SR Policy information needed to realize the SR Policy functionality defined in RFC 9256.  That does not raise any transport-related concerns beyond RFC 9256.