Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-04-17
Requested 2019-04-03
Authors Stefano Previdi, Les Ginsberg, Clarence Filsfils, Ahmed Bashandy, Hannes Gredler, Bruno Decraene
Draft last updated 2019-04-17
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -20 by Russ White (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Russ White (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -23 by Erik Kline (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Erik Kline 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23-genart-lc-kline-2019-04-17
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 25)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-17


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


Document: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2019-04-17
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


For what little I know of IS-IS and segment routing, this all seems to make general sense.  I simply had some language/style nits (below).

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

# Section 1

* "SR's control-plane can be applied ..., and do not require...".  It looks
like the subject of the sentence is "control-plane" and so perhaps "do not"
should be "does not".

* s/draft/document/g

# Section 2.1

* "Algorithms identifiers" -> "Algorithm identifiers"

# Section 2.2.2

* Length: variable

Should this say "11-12" (1 + 1 + 6 + 3-4)?

* "set of Adj-SID each router" -> "set of Adj-SIDs each router", perhaps.

# Section 2.3

s/valu eis/value is/

# Section 2.4

Silly, naive question: does the length include the sum of the octets
representing the sub-TLVs?

# Section 2.4.6

In example 3, I would recommend s/0xD/0x0D/ & s/0x0/0x00/ & s/0x1/0x01/ ,
but perhaps that's just a personal readability thing.

# Section 3.3

* "by other components than" -> "by components other than", perhaps.

* "to know what are the local SIDs" -> "to know what the local SIDs are",

* "The SRLB sub-TLV is used for this purpose...", (instead of "that purpose") maybe.

* "which mechanisms are outside" -> "which are outside", maybe.

* "the SRLB TLV" -> "the SRLB sub-TLV", I think.