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 Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
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 2024-03-01
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 Stig Venaas
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-03-01
I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready.

I only found one minor nit when reviewing.

In section 2 it says:
   As specified in section of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi], the
   Segment Type Sub-TLVs specified in this document are also used only
   by the SRPM [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] as described in section 4
   of [RFC9256] on the same lines as segment types A and B.  Their
   validation is, therefore, beyond the scope of BGP.

SRPM should be spelled out when first used.
Not sure what is meant by "on the same lines", should it be "along the same lines"?