Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-09
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-09-rtgdir-early-halpern-2024-12-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-12-23
Requested 2024-12-06
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Stefano Previdi , Ketan Talaulikar , Jie Dong , Hannes Gredler , Jeff Tantsura
I-D last updated 2024-12-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -10 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Ned Smith (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Comments 
The RTG-DIR review is an early review after WG LC and before submission to the IESG.  The RTG Area Directors require this. 

The OPS-DIR review is also an early review after WG LC and before submission to the IESG.  For this draft, the RTG Area Directors may wish to see this review in addition to the RTG-DIR review.  If we cannot schedule it by 12/31, the shepherd will submit this draft without an early review.
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/J6-LxSZ6xT_1lCFh2b8fzbDR034
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-12-08
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-09-rtgdir-early-halpern-2024-12-08-00
Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Document: draft-name-version.txt
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

Summary:
    I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
    resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.

This document provides a means for a head end, or an entity acting on behalf of
the head end, to report in BGP-LS the status of Segment Routing Policy
Candidate Paths.  The draft provides a good overview of the way SR Policies are
structured, and the usage of candidate paths.  The reader does need familiarity
with the SR Policy-related RFCs, which while it causes some work is appropriate
given that duplicating the material would be an invitation to inconsistency. As
a reader, I particularly appreciated that each item refers to the specific
section and subsection of the relevant RFC.

There are no Major issues with this document

Minor comment:
    The description of the Metric Margin in section 5.6.6. SR Metric Constraint
    Sub-TLV says that it can either be an absolute value or a percentage of the
    minimum margin.  But the text does not seem to specify the encoding for the
    percentage case. (For the absolute case I presume the encoding is based on
    the defining RFC.  As an editorial matter, one could say that.) This also
    applies to the metric margin description in section 5.9.SR Segment List
    Metric Sub-TLV

Editorial comment:
    The text in the U-flag of section 5.3 seems to say that the U-flag being
    clear indicates the same things as the U flag being set.  I am sure that is
    not the intent.  Particular sinc ethere is a dangling "either".  Please
    edit.