Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2020-10-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested rev. 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 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 Jonathan Hardwick 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2020-10-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/svtvEj6SFraDeJeTfZwOIznn5Hc/
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 22)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2020-10-21

Review
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2020-10-21

Hello,

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 ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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

Summary:

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

Comments:

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

Major issues:

None.

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?

Nits:

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.