Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
review-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05-rtgdir-lc-jia-2023-12-11-00

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
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: December 10, 2023
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of enhanced VPN,
and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree with his suggestion to
follow the discussion and align the draft with the output. In addition, some
minor issues and also nits are found out as follows and should be considered
prior to publication.

Minor Issues:
1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to represent
both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated by
network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by network nodes" or "allocated to
network nodes"? If it is "network resources allocated by network nodes", why
not "allocated by centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network resources
allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " allocated
to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by saying
"network nodes" only here?

2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated with the same
VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the topological and resource
constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is "SRv6 Locator" missing?

Nits:
1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC 5311, which
is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1,  Paragraph 3, last sentence,
s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need to be distributed using
a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used
as the identifier of VTN in control plane./MT-ID could be used as the
identifier of VTN in the control plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology
[RFC5120]" and "IS-IS Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in
the draft. It is suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft.