Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02
review-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02-rtgdir-lc-qu-2026-05-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-04-24
Requested 2026-04-10
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Adrian Farrel , Suresh Krishnan
I-D last updated 2026-04-24 (Latest revision 2026-04-24)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Yingzhen Qu
Genart IETF Last Call review of -01 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Peter E. Yee
Assignment Reviewer Yingzhen Qu
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/PA9mJt_sEF9hxPTUbLFd-zhxzdo
Reviewed revision 02
Result Ready
Completed 2026-05-01
review-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02-rtgdir-lc-qu-2026-05-01-00
Document: draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 2026-05-01
IETF LC End Date: 2026-04-24
Intended Status: Standards

## Summary

Thanks to the authors for working on the document, it is nicely written and clear.
There are a few nits for the authors to consider.

## nits
81	   use of the Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] an IPv6 extension
should be "use of the Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754], an IPv6 extension"

162	   List are 128 bit entries, but not necessarily IPv6 addresses.
s/128 bit/128-bit

204	   List are 128 bit entries, but not necessarily IPv6 addresses.
same as above.