Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-05-24
Requested 2024-04-26
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Natrajan Venkataraman
I-D last updated 2024-05-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Matthew Bocci
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar
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)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05
Result Not ready
Completed 2024-05-24
This is an Early Review, requested by the WG chair.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-05
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: May 24th 2024
Intended Status: Experimental

The draft is clear and well written. I have a few nits about the grammar. I
have one major comment (which lead to the 'not ready' result). This is that the
draft seems to require the implementation of a set of SRv6 behaviors that are
described in an individual draft in the SPRING working group, that it is not
clear that there is consensus on and that are not registered with IANA. This
makes even implementing the experiment a problem. I think it is premature to
progress this draft before draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids has
progressed and the corresponding behaviors registered with IANA.

Major Comments:
Section 4, SRv6 Encapsulation Information.
The text references END.REPLACE, END.REPLACEB6, and END.DB6 using a normative
reference to draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. It says "These are
leveraged for BGP-CT routes with SRv6 data plane." and indeed uses them
extensively in the examples further on in the draft. However, the code points
for these are not yet assigned in and the
IANA considerations sections of both drafts make no requests of IANA to
allocate these. The RTGDIR review of v03 of the draft also made a comment on
this part of the text, asking if these new behaviors were required, but I do
not see any updates to the text to address this comment. If these are really
needed for draft-ietf-bgp-ct-srv6, then one would at least expect them to be
defined in a standards track working group draft and to see an early allocation
by IANA, regardless of the experimental status of bgp-ct-srv6.

There are a few cases in the draft where the definite article ('the' or also
'an') is missing. For example, in the abstract: s/applied to SRv6
dataplane/applied to the SRv6 dataplane s/procedures work in SRv6
dataplane/procedures work in the SRv6 dataplane. I would suggest going through
the draft and correcting cases such as this.