Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-15

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 2024-05-24
Requested 2024-05-03
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Shraddha Hegde , Mukul Srivastava , Kapil Arora , Samson Ninan , Xiaohu Xu
I-D last updated 2024-05-07
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 Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 17)
Result Not ready
Completed 2024-05-07

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

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-name-version
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the Routing
ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.


I was very pleased with the clarity and readability of the document.  It lays
out the space it is working in, and explains what it does and how very well.

Major Issues:
    I have significant concern with the structure of the TLVs in two regards.
    First, the PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV (assigned tbd1 in section 4, defined in
    section 4.1) uses a single code point for IPv4 and IPv6 and differentiates
    by length.  Other sub-TLVs for MPLS ping and traceroute use different code
    points for IPv4 and IPv6. Second, all of the sub-TLVs defined in section 4
    have length codes.  Looking at RFC 8029, sub-TLVs are defined with fixed
    lengths and do not have length codes embedded in them.  While one can argue
    that this is a bad practice, it is the practice, and RFC 8287 follows that
    practice.  It would seem this document should do so as well.

Minor Issues:
    It would be helpful if the document directly referenced RFC 8029 and said
    that 8029 is where the TLVs that can carry these sub-TLVs is defined.  That
    should be a normative reference.