Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-12
review-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-12-rtgdir-lc-peng-2024-02-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-02-14
Requested 2024-02-01
Requested by Andrew Alston
Authors Shraddha Hegde , Mukul Srivastava , Kapil Arora , Samson Ninan , Xiaohu Xu
I-D last updated 2024-02-05
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -12 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -15 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shuping Peng
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/PynnU0ukkGNFnGxppf0TdRicbK0
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 17)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-02-05
review-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-12-rtgdir-lc-peng-2024-02-05-00
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
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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-mpls-sr-epe-oam
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 2024-2-6
IETF LC End Date: 2024-2-14
Intended Status: Standards

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Major Issues:
 "No major issues found."

Minor Issues:
1. 4.1, the following sentence has shown twice but with the same issue to be
clarified. "Link Local IPV6 addresses are for further study." This "Link Local
IPv6 addresses" will not be further studied in this draft, right? Shall we make
this more clear?

2. Section 5.1
"4a. Segment Routing IGP-Prefix, IGP-Adjacency SID and EPE-SID Validation :"
What is "4a." in this sentence?

3. Section 5.1
The algorithm procedures could be better formatted throughout this section.

Nits:
1. Section 1
s/peer nodes, links set of links/peer nodes, links, set of links

2. Section 4
s/IPV4/IPv4
s/IPV6/IPv6

3. Section 4.1
s/length will be 24./length will be 24 octets.
s/length will be 48./length will be 48 octets.

s/Length excludes the length of Type and Length field
 /Length excludes the length of Type and Length fields

4. Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
s/4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
 /4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP Identifier of the advertising
 node as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

5. Section 4.2
s/Length : 16/Length : 16 octets

6. Section 4.3
s/inside the Confederation.[RFC5065]./inside the Confederation [RFC5065].

7. Section 5
s/Peer Node SID/PeerNode SID

s/9 + no.of elements/9 + No. of elements

8. Section 5.1, the following sentence has shown twice but with the same issue
s/"Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth if any below
conditions fail: /"Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth"
if any below conditions fail:

9. Section 6
s/IANA is requested to allocated/IANA is requested to allocate

10. Section 7
s/When EPE-SIDs which are created for egress TE links where the neighbor AS is
an independent entity, /When EPE-SIDs are created for egress TE links where the
neighbor AS is an independent entity,