Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02-rtgdir-early-venaas-2024-03-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
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) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff) 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 | Stig Venaas |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2024-03-01 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02-rtgdir-early-venaas-2024-03-01-00
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 2.4.4.2 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"?