Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-10
review-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-10-intdir-early-halley-2023-07-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09
Requested revision 09 (document currently at 16)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-08-05
Requested 2023-07-11
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Zhibo Hu, Huaimo Chen , Mehmet Toy , Chang Cao , Tao He
I-D last updated 2023-07-26
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Intdir Early review of -10 by Bob Halley (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -09 by Susan Hares (diff)
Comments 
Kindly request early reviews of this document, specifically focusing on its consistency and effectiveness in relation to existing mechanisms.
Assignment Reviewer Bob Halley
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/rP6NEle5tgskCYj8A932Kj6hE9I
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-07-26
review-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-10-intdir-early-halley-2023-07-26-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, the document IS ready to go to IETF Last Call and therefore
CAN be forwarded to the IESG.

I reviewed version 9 of the document, and saw that version 10 was out right
before submitting this review, so I reviewed it as well.  My comments below
apply to both versions, but the line numbers are from draft 9.

Example 3.2 mentions the importance of P1 retaining the route to PE3 for a time
as it is PLR.  Given the importance of this behavior, should it be mentioned in
the normative text of section 3.1?  (I'm not sure if this is specified in
another document, but if not, mentioning it in the normative section would be
good.)

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

"will be one of the followings" should be "will be one of the following" on
lines 288, 306, and 436.

On line 382, "retent" should be "retained".