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 06) | |
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) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Vincent Roca Opsdir 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 06) | |
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)