Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2022-07-31
Requested 2022-06-21
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Stefano Previdi , Clarence Filsfils , Ketan Talaulikar , Paul Mattes , Dhanendra Jain
I-D last updated 2022-07-08
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -18 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Early review of -18 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Haberman
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 26)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-07-08
1. Section 2.1 - The definition of the NLRI lacks sufficient detail on what
constitutes a malformed NLRI (e.g., a multicast address in the Endpoint field)
and how those errors should be handled. Are all the error conditions described
in Section 5? If so, a forward reference to Section 5 would be useful.

2. Section 2.1 - The paragraph describing the next-hop network address field
seems incomplete. Specifically, how does a node handle the length = 32 case?
That does not appear to be described in Section 3 of RFC 4760. What purpose
does this encoding serve? Do the addresses need to be validated in some form?
Does "global IPv6 address" include ULAs in this context? Does this encoding
support the Type G & J segment types?

3. In several places, the document mentions this information potentially
transiting multiple ASes. What BGP policies are needed to ensure that this info
doesn't propagate globally? Waiting until the Security Considerations section
for such discussion was unsatisfying as a reader. Perhaps a short example
topology up front to set the stage?