Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-10-21
Requested 2020-10-07
Authors Christoph Loibl, Robert Raszuk, Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2020-10-25
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -17 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Dale Worley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dale Worley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ppR1ajOhnhac9LAoA8CLmNztXQM
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 22)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-10-25

Review
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-genart-lc-worley-2020-10-25

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2020-10-25
IETF LC End Date:  2020-10-21
IESG Telechat date:  2020-11-05

Summary:

    This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.

Nits/editorial comments:

3.1.  Type 1 - Destination IPv6 Prefix
3.2.  Type 2 - Source IPv6 Prefix

Unlike IPv4, it is plausible that a set of flows could be determined
by two contiguous sections of an address, e.g., an initial prefix and
a subset of bits within an embedded IPv4 address.  By
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26 section 4.2, an IPv6 flow specification
may not contain two Destination IPv6 Prefix or two Source IPv6 Prefix
components, so this type of selection cannot be specified.

4.  Ordering of Flow Specifications

   If the offsets are not equal, the lowest offset has
   precedence, as this flow matches the most significant bit.

"as this flow" should be "as this flow specification"

5.  Validation Procedure

      a) A destination prefix component with offset=0 is embedded in the
      Flow Specification

I note that this requirement has no functional effect, as a
destination prefix with length = 0 can always be added to a flow
specification without effect.  However, this observation also applies
to IPv4 flow specifications, so I assume it has been given due
consideration.

[END]