Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-10-21
Requested 2020-10-07
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Christoph Loibl , Robert Raszuk , Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2020-10-21
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 R. 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 E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jonathan Hardwick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2020-10-21
Posted at
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 22)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2020-10-21

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 21 Oct 2020
IETF LC End Date: 21 Oct 2020
Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some minor concerns (questions, really) about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.


Overall a well written and easy-to-understand draft. Thank you!

Major issues:


Minor issues:

Section 3.6
I note that this is consistent with rfc5575bis, but it left me with several
questions. What is an implementation to do if contradictory bits are set in the
same bitmask? (IsF & FF)? (FF & LF)? Same question if contradictory bits are
set in successive bitmasks and the “AND” bit is set in bitmask_op? What is the
effect of setting / clearing the “match” bit in bitmask_op?

Section 3.3
“Type 3 component values SHOULD be encoded as single octet” – why not a MUST?


Section 3.1
Suggest rewording “of N first bits of the address” -> “the first N bits of the
address” I find the “length” field oddly named. I misunderstood it at first as
the length of the pattern. I think “end_offset” might have been a better
choice. Not a big deal though.