Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-07-06
Requested 2020-06-22
Authors Stewart Bryant, Mach Chen, George Swallow, Siva Sivabalan, Greg Mirsky
Draft last updated 2020-06-29
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Bernard Aboba (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Bernard Aboba (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08-genart-lc-resnick-2020-06-29
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2020-06-29


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-mpls-sfl-framework-08
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2020-06-29
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


A couple of minor issues and a couple of *extremely* nitty nits, but overall looks ready to go.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of Proposed Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in fact the writeup refers to the document as a "specification", which is exactly what it appears to be. It defines the use of SFLs, describes how they are processed by the endpoints, describes how they are aggregated, etc. While the document may not be standalone, I don't see how it's really an Informational document. I suggest restarting the Last Call for Proposed, and if for some reason it needs to be Informational, it can always be downgraded after Last Call.

The Security Considerations section says, "The issue noted in Section 6 is a security consideration." I'm not sure I understand why that is.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1: "(see Section 3)" seems unnecessary.

Section 3: I thought the "Consider..." construction made those paragraphs unnecessarily wordy and a bit harder to follow.