Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09
review-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09-rtgdir-early-rogge-2026-05-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-06-08
Requested 2026-05-20
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Changwang Lin , Weiqiang Cheng , Yao Liu , Ketan Talaulikar , Mengxiao Chen
I-D last updated 2026-08-24 (Latest revision 2026-08-24)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -13 by Bing Liu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Secdir Early review of -10 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/wxL1KsnN0brnR6YbOEh5nEUnhT8
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-05-28
review-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-09-rtgdir-early-rogge-2026-05-28-00
Hello, RTG-Dir asked me to review the newest release of
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id.

The draft reads easy and clear, there is just the 3rd paragraph of chapter 2.1
that puzzles me a bit with its seemingly contradicting combination of MUST and
MUST NOT.

The TLV MUST NOT appear twice... okay, so if it appears more than once
something we don't understand is going on. After that we get told what to do if
it happens... so it is allowed to appear more than once? And we are not allowed
to consider the TLV malformed, which seem to contradict the first MUST NOT.

If we know what to do with multiple of these TLVs, maybe the first condition
should be downgraded to "SHOULD NOT"? If more than one is unacceptable, maybe
accepting them anyways is not okay? If the described combination is right,
maybe some additional clarification is needed?