Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05
review-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05-genart-lc-davies-2024-04-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-04-29
Requested 2024-04-15
Authors Ron Bonica , Yuji Kamite , Andrew Alston , Daniam Henriques , Luay Jalil
I-D last updated 2024-04-30
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6tsLdgHEYHtxlEzmZU-Xh6Vhj6Q
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-04-30
review-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05-genart-lc-davies-2024-04-30-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2024-04-30
IETF LC End Date: 2024-04-29
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with a couple of nits.  A thought occurred to me - the
experiment is written as assuming that the routing will be in single managed
domain.  However, once the Segments Left has been reduced to zero, the CRH
remains fixed and it would, in principle, be possible to send the packet out
into the wider network to be routed by conventional means.  I would also note
that the header could also act as a back channel by sending information in SIDs
with indexes greater than the intial value of segments left that are never
actually used by the CRH mechanism.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
In the Abstract and Introduction, the abbreviation CRH is expanded to Compact
Routing Header(s) but s3 and the draft headers refer to them as Compressed
Routing Headers.  I take Compact is the current preferred version.

Nits/editorial comments:
s5.1, notes at end:  It would be desirable to call them Note 1 and Note 2.  The
comment in the 'submit the packet' bullet should refer to Note 1.  Note 2 is a
general note applying to the previous bullets.