Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05-genart-lc-housley-2024-10-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-11-11
Requested 2024-10-21
Authors Ketan Talaulikar , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Paul Mattes , Dhanendra Jain
I-D last updated 2024-10-25
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)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0dFU2IyZYYOt8m-ea5vytO9B05I
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-10-25
review-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05-genart-lc-housley-2024-10-25-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2024-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2024-11-11
IESG Telechat date: Unknown


Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:

Section 2.10:  The text says:

   The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following
   flags in the "Segment Flags" field defined in ...

In Table 8 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi], these are called "SR Policy
Segment Flags".  In the nine previous sections, the field is just
labeled "Flags".  Please add some words to clarify.

Section 4:  I suggest a rewrite:

   The security considerations in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] apply
   to the new segment types defined in this document.  No additional
   security considerations are introduced in this document.

Section 5:  Please consider something similar to the proposed rewrite
for Section 4.


Minor Concerns:

Section 2.8 and Section 2.9: The SRv6 SID and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
and SID Structure are both optional.  I do not see how a receiver could
determine when the SRv6 SID is absent and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and
SID Structure is present.  I suspect that this is not allowed, but the
text does not make this clear.  Please clarify.


Nits:

Abstract and Introduction: Please spell out "BGP SR Policy SAFI" on
the first occurrence.

Section 2.3: s/present else/present, else/

Section 2.4: s/present else/present, else/

Section 2.5: s/present else/present, else/

Section 2.6: s/present else/present, else/