Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16
review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-10-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-11-16
Requested 2018-10-23
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -19 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -17 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joe Clarke
Review review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-10-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/im41BvacvxycKWWMU2zY7jAcvlU
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 21)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-10-26
Review completed: 2018-10-26

Review
review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-10-26

I have been assigned to review  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions  on behalf of the ops directorate.  This document defines OSPFv3 extensions needed for segment routing (SR).  And therein lies my first nit.  While the document begins to set forth this overarching scope, a small paragraph in section 1 further limits it to MPLS dataplanes only.  I think perhaps the abstract should be updated to clarify that.

Other items I found are listed below.

Overall, there are a lot of terminology used like RSVP, LDP, LSP, SID, etc.  I think this document would benefit from a terminology section.

With respect to TLV types 8, 9, 14, and 15, they are defined in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and it took me a while to figure out where you were getting those values and why they weren't spelled out in the IANA considerations.  You have a normative reference to this, which is good, but you only mention it with respect to the algorithm parameters.  I think another mention is required.

I'm going to be pedantic here.  According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the spec needs to explicitly state if it's applicable to OSPFv2, v3, or both.  While you reference the TLVs from draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, I didn't see that either document _explicitly_ states that they are applicable to both.

===

Section 2.1

s/length is other then 3 or 4/length is other than 3 or 4/

===

Section 3.2

s/If more then one SID/Label/If more than one SID/label/

===

Section 3.2

"When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST
      conform to the procedures defined in
      [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]."

It would be useful to include a section pointer here.  I think your referring to Section 2.3 where the router ignores the range?   Is it likely that will change to something other than "ignore?"  If not, maybe it's just worth mentioning that here.

===

Section 3.3

s/If more then one SID/Label/If more than one SID/Label/

===

Section 3.3

"The originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping ranges."

You specify what a router should do if it receives overlapping ranges above.  I think the same text should be used here, too.

===

Section 5

"Other bits: Reserved.  These MUST be zero when sent and are
         ignored when received."

The normative language changes.  In other places you say the bits SHOULD be 0.  I suggest:

Other bits: Reserved.  These SHOULD be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

===

Section 7.4.1

s/state lower then 2-Way/state lower than 2-Way/

===