Review request
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-02-29 | |
| Requested | 2024-02-15 | |
| Requested by | Susan Hares | |
| Authors | Stefano Previdi , Clarence Filsfils , Ketan Talaulikar , Paul Mattes , Dhanendra Jain | |
| WG chairs | Susan Hares , Keyur Patel , Jeffrey Haas | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-01-10 | |
| IESG document state | IESG Evaluation | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -04
by Vincent Roca
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang (diff) Tsvart Early review of -00 by David L. Black (diff) Opsdir Early review of -01 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar (diff) Genart Last Call review of -09 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Magnus Westerlund |
|
| Comments |
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. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David L. Black |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00-tsvart-early-black-2024-02-28
|
|
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/62rqGPrhAashIGcYupmbWZT4axY | |
| Reviewed revision | 00 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | On the right track | |
| Completed | 2024-02-28 |
History
| Date | By | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-28 | David L. Black | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black. |
| 2024-02-19 | David L. Black | Assignment for David Black accepted |
| 2024-02-19 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to David Black |
| 2024-02-15 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by TSVART |