Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
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 2024-02-28
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
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
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Has issues
Completed 2024-02-28
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

(same thing was done for the Security Considerations section)