Telechat Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-10
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-10-secdir-telechat-smith-2025-02-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-03-04 | |
| Requested | 2025-01-23 | |
| Authors | Stefano Previdi , Ketan Talaulikar , Jie Dong , Hannes Gredler , Jeff Tantsura | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-02-05 | |
| 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) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ned Smith |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/f3JFqPR978Jq9_ypAT1Dn2UlxaE | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 17) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-02-05 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-10-secdir-telechat-smith-2025-02-05-00
Ned M. Smith Review 2025-02-05 I have reviewed draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy revision 10, which specifies BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions for advertising Segment Routing (SR) Policies. The draft appears to be ready but there are a few nits that caught my attention. The authors may want to make changes or judge that for the intended audience no changes are needed. Notes: 1) "Flags: 1-octet field with following bit positions defined. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver." [NMS] Use of the word "cleared" may be ambiguous. Other similar language uses "set to 0". There are multiple occurrences of this concern. 2) "Bandwidth: 4 octets which specify the desired bandwidth in unit of bytes per second in IEEE floating point format." [NMS] This appears to be a normative requirement on IEEE floating point format but doesn't cite the specification. There are multiple occurrences of this. 3) "4 octets which carry a 32-bit unsigned non-zero number" [NMS] Using "number" may be ambiguous. Other text uses, e.g., "integer". The byte order for multibyte numbers isn't explicitly specified. The reader might presume big-endian from the contexts, but IMO it doesn't hurt to state assumptions the authors are making. 4) In the section 8.6. BGP-LS SR Policy Metric Type table, the code points 121 - 127 are omitted. Is this on purpose?