Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03-rtgdir-early-hardwick-2024-04-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-03-28
Requested 2024-03-12
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Natrajan Venkataraman
I-D last updated 2025-08-22 (Latest revision 2025-08-22)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -05 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Secdir Early review of -06 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -03 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -03 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Comments 
RTG-DIR: Jon Hardwick worked on the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 review.  The draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-04 draft has been split from the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. 
         It may be useful to have Jon if he feels comfortable with the SRv6 review. 

OPS-DIR - Bo Wu did the review in July on drsaft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18.  The draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-04 has been split from the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. It may be useful for 
          him to do the review of this draft. 

SEC-DIR—Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. Intent tracks service data (customer data) and places it over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. My understanding is that some people have questions SRv6 security. 
It would be good to provide feedback that differentiates between the general security and the additional issues this draft presents. 

TSV-DIR - Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels.  Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.
Assignment Reviewer Jonathan Hardwick
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/uflZvL2qTzFm9x6B1vAp18IlkyM
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 07)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-04-22
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03-rtgdir-early-hardwick-2024-04-22-00
This is an Early Review, requested by the WG chair.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: March 22nd 2024
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:

This is a companion document to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.  It describes procedures
and encodings applicable to BGP-CT where the transport network supports SRv6. 
It also shows two different methods of implementing BGP-CT in a multi-domain
SRv6 network.

I have no major concerns about this document. I have a few comments / questions
/ nits, as follows.

Comments:

S4 para 1 - "These are leveraged for BGP CT routes with SRv6 data plane."  The
meaning of this is unclear. Are you saying that these are the only endpoint
behaviours that can be used for BGP-CT? Is there a normative statement
(SHOULD/MUST) that you need to make, or is it just that these are the most
useful endpoint behaviours in this setting?

S4 para 3 – I don't think you need to say this sentence twice: “The BGP
Classful Transport route update for SRv6 MUST include an attribute containing
SRv6 SID information.”

S5 – This section, which comprises the bulk of the material in the document, is
a pair of detailed worked examples explaining options for configuring SRv6
networks.  Do we need to standardize these options?  If not, could they be in
an appendix (or a separate informational document)?  In any case, it would be
helpful to explain when each option would be applicable in an operator network
(why prefer one or the other?).

Acknowledgements section seems to have been block-copied from
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct :-)  The second paragraph does not seem relevant to
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6.