Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-04
review-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-04-secdir-early-mccall-2025-09-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-09-19
Requested 2025-09-04
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors David 'equinox' Lamparter , Anton Smirnov , Jen Linkova , Shu Yang , Mingwei Xu
I-D last updated 2025-09-14 (Latest revision 2025-09-14)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -04 by Linda Dunbar
Secdir Early review of -04 by Jacqueline McCall
Intdir Early review of -04 by Bob Hinden
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Mach Chen
Assignment Reviewer Jacqueline McCall
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/i-W1byzaiLz_Xav1O4g0gLRh2p8
Reviewed revision 04
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-09-17
review-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-04-secdir-early-mccall-2025-09-17-00
Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-04
Title: Destination/Source Routing
Reviewer: Jacqueline McCall
Review result: Has nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

The summary of the review is “Ready with nits”.

Overall, I think it’s a well-structured document with clear use cases and
implementation guidance. Two areas identified for further review are: •      
Normative references: Sections 5.5 and 5.6 use MUST/RECOMMENDED language tied
to RFC 6724 and RFC 8028. These should probably be promoted to normative
references. •       Editorial: o       Multiple spelling errors have been
identified eg. “redundandy” → redundancy, “transfering” → transferring,
“neccessary” → necessary, etc. o       There are some inconsistencies switching
between different global spellings for the words "behavior" and "behaviour" and
inconsistent switching between "nexthop" and "next-hop".