Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 27)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-06-19
Requested 2017-05-30
Requested by Alia Atlas
Authors Peter Psenak , Stefano Previdi , Clarence Filsfils , Hannes Gredler , Rob Shakir , Wim Henderickx , Jeff Tantsura
I-D last updated 2017-07-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by John Drake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -19 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -22 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
I just did an AD review with a number of issues, so you may find it helpful to wait for an updated
draft if it comes quickly.  Regardless, having a second solid review would be very helpful.
For me, this review took a long time & turned into scanning through many of the related SPRING documents.
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 27)
Result Has issues
Completed 2017-07-02
Status: Almost-ready: Minor concerns on error reporting additions.

General Comment:  One of the things which must have been worked on by 3
implementations is  the error reporting for overlapping prefixes or an
erroneous TLV.  I simply could not find it.  As an OPS-DIR review, I look for
clearly specified error reporting for protocol errors and provisioning errors. 
If it is another document, the authors could simply reference it.  If it is not
there, please summarize what the implementers have done already.  No need to
change working code, but documenting this will help a new implementation
provide the same error reporting.

I have given general guidance here, and will review the specifics that the main
editors suggest.  However, it really needs to be addressed in the specification
so new implementation may provide this in put.

Sue Hares


Editorial nits:

1)      Page 5 – please provide RI abbreviation so that page 6 and can utilize

In last paragraph:


/SR-Algorithm TLV in the  Router Information LSA with/


/SR-Algorithm TLV in the  Router Information (RI) LSA with/

2)      Page 15 – paragraph  starting with “When the M-Flag is set, the NP-Flag
and the E-Flag”

     The text jumps and does nor provide a link to the next paragraph.  I
     suspect you want to smooth this out.

3)      Page 19, the reference back to section 4 – is accurate, but not easily
understood based on section 4’s comments.