Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02-opsdir-early-romascanu-2024-02-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-02-29 | |
| Requested | 2024-02-15 | |
| Requested by | Susan Hares | |
| Authors | Ketan Talaulikar , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Paul Mattes , Dhanendra Jain | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-09-12 (Latest revision 2025-02-20) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -02
by Stig Venaas
(diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Vincent Roca (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This draft comes from a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext. Please note that this draft is experimental and the draft-ietf-idr-sr-polciy-safi is proposed standard. The reason for the split is the lack of 2 implementations for segment types C-L. Please look at the procedures for types C-L in context of the text in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/3OR0rJYruxQuBtRCiGV5Z2lmO9Y | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2024-02-28 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02-opsdir-early-romascanu-2024-02-28-00
This document specifies the extensions for the advertisement of the SR Segment Types not covered by the SR Policy Architecture document. It extends a Standards Track document, but is at experimental status because of lack of enough implementations. It is relevant for operators managing networks that will deploy these protocols. I am missing an Operational and Manageability Considerations section. At a minimum, the following statement in Section 1 would better be included there: > The extensions in this document do not impact the SR Policy operations or fault management as specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]. (same thing was done for the Security Considerations section)