Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-09-14
Requested 2019-08-07
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Jeff Tantsura, Uma Chunduri, Ketan Talaulikar, Gregory Mirsky, Nikos Triantafillis
Draft last updated 2019-09-15
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mach Chen (diff)
These review are occurig after WG LC on a BGP LS draft with 2 Cisco implementations. 
The WG is being queried to consider if the 2 Cisco implementations are sufficient for IDR 2 implementation requirement (8/8 to 8/23).
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05-rtgdir-early-chen-2019-09-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/vFlP0cWthq10w5cPYikMyHu-eZM
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2019-09-15



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 10 September 2019 
Intended Status: Standards Track

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.


Generally, I found the draft quite readable, with a clear explanation of the problem statements and solutions. However, I have one minor comment and a nit.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

This draft is an extension to BGP-LS (RFC 7752) that is under a re-spin, I have a question whether this draft should reference to RFC 7752 or the new bis document.

1.1.1.  Terminology

Part of the last bullet should be separated into a dedicated paragraph, it looks like an copy and pastes nit. 

"The number of labels imposed is then the sum of the number of labels that are
      replaced and the number of labels that are pushed.  See [RFC3031]"

Best regards,