Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-11
review-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-11-tsvart-lc-ihlar-2024-09-10-00

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Section 6.4.
It states that the querier can use the procedure defined in
draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation. Is this a mere suggestion, are
queriers free to use any type of encapsulation (proprietary or otherwise) for
marking packets? Perhaps expand a bit on this and consider whether the
draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation should be a normative reference.

Section 7.1.1
The text below might be clear for the intended readers, but as someone coming
slightly from the outside it's a bit difficult to follow: "An SR-MPLS Segment
List Sub-TLV may carry only Binding SID label [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
of the Return SR-MPLS Policy." It is unclear if this is a normative statement.
Does it mean to say that the Binding SID label is the only type of label
allowed? If this is the case, please make it more clear, also in that case the
reference I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid (which is now RFC 9604) should be
normative. Otherwise please clarify what you mean with this statement.

Nits:
The reference [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] has a broken URL.